UC-NHLF 


SPEECH 


OP 


HON.  JOHN  M.  READ, 


IN   FAVOR   OF 


FREE  KANSAS,  FREE  WHITE  LABOR,  AND  OF  FREMONT  AND 

DAYTON,  AT  THE  EIGHTH  WARD  MASS  MEETING, 

HELD  IN  THE  ASSEMBLY  BUILDINGS, 


ON 


TUESDAY  EVENING,  SEPTEMBER  30,  1856. 


PHILADELPHIA 


1856. 


SI  A? 

i?4 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.  JOHN  M,  READ. 


FELLOW  CITIZENS: — Was  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise  constitutional  ?  Was  iU  nullification  abroach 
of  national  faith  and  a  violation  of  national  honor? 
Is  not  its  restoration  called  for  by  the  truest  in 
tents  of  humanity  and  freedom?  Shall  Kansas 
be  sl.ivc  or  tree  ? 

These  are  the  true  issues  involved  in  our  coming 
elections,  ai>d  can  there  bo  a  doubt  that  the  people 
of  Pennsylvania  will  euli  t  in  the  great  army  of 
freedom  to  carry  free  soil,  free  speech,  a  free  press, 
and  free  labor  into  invaded  and  subjugated  Kan 
sas.  No  man  can  speak,  write,  or  even  think  his 
true  opinions  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  in  Kan 
sas  as  it  is  now  governed,  .  y  laws  made  by  a,  legis 
lature,  elected  not  by  the  resident  voters  of  Kansas, 
but  by  an.  army  of  Border  Ruffians  from  Missouri, 
and  supported  by  the  President  and  army  of  the 
United  Stales,  whose  bayonets  are  used  to  stab 
freedom  to  the  heart. 

These  questions,  the  greatest  that  have  occurred 
since  the  formation  of  the  Constitution,  should  be 
discussed  calmly  and  temperately,  our  object  being 
to  convince  all  dispassionate  men  of  all  parties 
that  we  are  right. 

We  have  on  our  side,  the  Constitution  and  its 
uniform  construction  by  its  fmmers,  the  patriots 
and  sages  of  the  revolution — by  the  father  of  his 
country — the  author  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence —  aud  by  all  the  Constitutional  lawyers 
and  statesmen  of  the  Union.  The  proof  of  this  is 
to  be  found  in  the  history  of  the  Con.-litur.ion,  of 
the  Ordinance  of  1787,  of  the  Compromise  of  1820, 
and  of  the  uniform  practice  under  them  by  all 
departments  of  the  government. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  all  our  revolu 
tionary  patriots  were  in  favor  of  freedom,  and  op 
posed  to  slavery  as  "  a  great  political  and  moral 
evil."  Mr.  Jefferson  looked  forward  to  a  gradual 
emancipation  in  the  States  by  State  authority.  '•! 
think,"  said  he  '*  a  change  is  already  perceptible 
since  the  origin  of  the  present  revolution.  The 
spirit  of  the  master  is  abating,  that  of  the  slave  is 
rising  from  the  dust,  his  condition  mollifying,  the 
way,  I  hope,  preparing  under  the  auspices  of 
Heaven,  for  a  total  emancipation,  and  that  this  is 
di.-posed  in  the  order  of  events  to  be  with  the  con 
sent  of  the  masters  rather  than  by  their  extir 
pation." 

The  articles  of  confederation  were  signed  by 
New  Jersey,  Delaware  and  Alary l.nd,  with  great 
hesitation,  and  by  the  last  not  until  Congress  had 
requested,  and  two  States  had  actually  ceded  their 
claims  to  Western  Territory  for  the  benefit  of  the 
United  Suites. 

i,The  resolution  of  the  10th  October,  1780,  con 
templated  the  disposal  by  Congress  of  the  unap 
propriated  lands  ceded  to  the  United  States,  and 
their  settlement  and  formation  into  distinct  re 
publican  States.  The  several  cessions  were 
made  in  due  form  by  the  States  of  New  York, 


Virginia  and  Massachusetts.  The  claims  of  these 
Statt-s  were  founded  originally  on  the  terms  of 
their  respective  charters,  and  included  not  only 
the  soil  and  the  right  of  pre-emption  but  as  com 
plete  a  jurisdiction  and  right  of  sovereignty  over 
the  Territory  and  its  inhabitants  as  if  it  had  been 
in  the  most  densely  populated  part  of  their  Atlau- 
tic  possessions. 

When,  therefore,  these  States,  and  particularly 
Virginia,  executed  their  deeds  of  ce&sion,  they 
parted  with  the  soil  the  right  of  pre-emption  arid 
the  sovereignty  or  jurisdiction  which  they  claimed 
to  exercise  within  their  charter  limits,  and  the 
whole  vested  in  the  United  States  of  America. 
No  one  could  sell  the  lands,  or  yovern  the  peojjlein 
those  Territories  but  their  recognised  organ,  the 
Congress  of  the  Confederation,  ami  we  accordingly 
find  that  both  objects  were  separately  the  subjects 
of  distinct  congressional  legislation. 

The  government  of  the  people  was  the  first  ob 
ject,  and  the  preparation  of  the  ceded  Territories 
for  their  erection  into  republican  States,  which 
should  become  sovereign  members  of  the  confede 
racy.  Accordingly,  on  the  19th  of  April,  1784, 
Congress  took  into  consideration  the  report  of  a 
committee,  consisting  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  Mr.  Chase, 
and  Mr.  Howell,  to  whom  was  recommitted  their 
report  of  a  plan  for  the  temporary  government  of 
the  Western  Territory.  A  motion  was  made  by 
Mr.  Spaight,  of  North  Carolina,  seconded  by  a 
delegate  from  South  Carolina,  to  strike  out  this 
paragraph : 

"  Thnt,  after  the  year  1800  of  the  Christian  era, 
there  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  ser 
vitude  in  any  of  the  said  States  otherwise  than  in 
punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall  have 
been  convicted  to  have  been  personnlly  ijuilty." 
i*;  It  was  struck  out,  all  the  States  north  of  Mason 
and  Dixon's  line  voting  for  it,  as  well  as  Mr.  Jef 
ferson  and  Mr.  Williamson  of  North  Carolina. 
After  some  other  amendments  the  resolution  was 
adopted  on  the  23d  of  April.  This  report,  and 
particularly  this  provision  against  the  existence  of 
slavery  in  the  new  States,  was  understood  to  be  the 
production  of  Mr.  Jefferson. 

This  resolution  provided  for  the  temporary  go 
vernment  of  the  North  Western  Territory,  and  pre 
scribed  the  size  of  the  States  aud  the  time  and 
manner  of  their  admission,  and  the  principles  upon 
which  both  the  temporary  and  permanent  govern 
ments  should  be  established.  It  is  clear  that  nei 
ther  Mr.  Jefferson  nor  any  member  of  that  Con 
gress  doubted  the  power  of  that  body  to  acquire 
territory  and  to  legislate  for  it  and  its  people,  by 
providing  first  a  temporary  government,  and  se 
condly  for  the  future  formation  of  independent 
sovereign  States,  which  should  be  admitted  into 
the  confederacy — and  still  further,  it  is  equally 
clear  that  Mr.  Jefferson  and  a  real  majority  of  the 
States  included  the  power  to  prohibit  slavery  as 


within  th-3ir  legitimate  authority.  Congress 'having 
thus  provided  a  plan  for  the  temporary  and  pei- 
manent  government  of  the  Territory,  next  direct 
ed  their  attention  to  the  sale  of  the  public  lands 
within  it  to  which  the  Indian  titles  had  been  ex 
tinguished. 

On  the  7th  May,  1784,  a  Committee,  of  which 
Mr.  JcfiVrson  (who  bad  been  the  Chairman  of  tne 
Committee  on  the  plan  for  the  government  of  the 
Territories)  Mas  Chairman,  reported  "an  ordi 
nance  for  ascertaining  the  mode  of  locating  and 
disposing  of  lands  in  the  Western  Territory,  and 
for  other  purposes  therein  mentioned.''  This  ordi 
nance,  as  amended,  passed  on  the  20th  May,  1785, 
and  formed  the  ground-work  of  the  present  land 
laws  of  the  United  States. 

The  Congress  of  the  confederation,  therefore, 
exercised  separately  the  two  distinct  branches  of 
their  sovereign  power  over  the  Western  Territory. 
1st.  By  organizing  governments  for  the  people. 
2d.  By  adopting  a  plan  <>r  ordinance  for  disposing 
of  the  lat-ds  in  said  Territory. 

It  was,  however,  deemed  expedient  to  repeal  the 
Resolve  of  the  23d  April,  1784,  which  was  accord 
ingly  done  by  Congress,  who,  on  the  13th  July, 
1787,  passed  the  celebrated  ordinai.ce  for  the  go 
vernment  of  the  Territory  of  the  United  States 
Northwest  of  the  river  Ohio. 

It  regulated  the  descent  of  intestate  estates  in 
the  Territory,  and  also  devises  by  will  and  the 
conveyance  of  real  estate,  with  the  mode  of  proof, 
acknowledgment  and  record,  and  established  also 
the  transfer  of  personal  property  by  delivery,  sav 
ing  to  the  French  and  Canadian  inhabitants  and 
other  settlers  of  the  Kaskaskias,  St.  Vincents,  and 
the  neighboring  villages  who  had  theretofore  pro 
fessed  themselves  citizens  of  Virginia,  their  laws 
and  customs  then  in  force  relative  to  the  descent 
and  conveyance  of  property. 

It  then  gave  a  temporary  government  to  the 
Territory  or  District,  consisting  of  a  Governor,  Se 
cretary,  and  three  Judges,  the  Governor  and 
Judges  being  invested  with  legislative  power  until 
the  organization  of  a  General  Assembly,  which 
was  to  consist  of  the  Governor,  a  Legislative 
Council,  appointed  by  Congress  from  the  nornina  • 
tinns  made  by  the  Representatives,  and  a  House  of 
Representatives,  which  Council  and  House  were 
authorized,  by  joint  ballot,  to  elect  a  Delegate  to 
Congress,  who  was  to  have  a  seat  with  the  right  of 
debating,  but  not  of  voting,  during  this  temporary 
government. 

Tiie  second  or  permanent  part  of  the  ordinance, 
established  the  principles  in  the  shape  of  articles, 
which  were  six  in  number,  by  which  both  the  tem 
porary  and  permanent  governments  should  be  for 
ever  regulated,  and  provided  for  the  formation  of 
not  less  than  three,  nor  more  than  five  Stales  in 
the  Territory,  and  their  admission  into  the  Union; 
provided,  the  constitution  and  government  to  be 
formed  by  such  States,  should  be  republican,  and 
in  conformity  to  the  principles  contained  in  the 
said  articles. 

The  sixth  of  these  articles  which  applied  ex 
pressly  to  the  Territory,  whether  under  the  tem 
porary  or  permanent  form  of  government,  declared 
th?  freedom  of  the  noil  by  prohibiting  forever  the 
existence  of  slavery  icithin  this  favored  region — a 
provision  which  was  merely  an  enlargement  of  Mr. 
Jefferton't  favorite  proposition  in  the  Congress  of 

m4. 

This  article,  which  is  one  of  those  declared  to 
be  unalterable,  except  by  common  consent,  is  in 
these  words : 

"There  ihall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary 
servitude  in  the  said  Territory,  otherwise  than  in 
the  punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall 


have  been  duly  convicted  ;  provided  always,  that 
any  person  escaping  into  the  same,  from  whom  ia- 
bor  or  service  is  lawfully  claimed  in  any  one  of  the 
original  States,  such  fugitive  may  be  lawfully  re- 
claimed  and  conveyed  to  the  person  claiming  his 
or  her  labor,  or  service  as  aforesaid." 

This  ordinance  had  been  the  subject  of  discus 
sion  in  Congress  ten  months  before  its  adoption. 
Mr.  Gorbaiu,  Mr.  King,  Mr.  Miidison  and  Mr. 
Butler,  who  were  members  of  the  Federal  Conven 
tion,  were  also  delegates  in  the  Congress  which  sat 
in  New  York.  Mr.  Madison  was  present  in  Con 
gress  whilst  this  ordinance  was  on  second  reading, 
and  we  find  his  name  on  the  Journal,  on  the  22d 
April,  1787,  and  on  the  next,  day  he  wrote  a  letter 
to  Mr.  Jefferson,  from  New  York,  in  which  he  says, 
"  the  present  deliberations  oj  Congress  turn  on,  first, 
the  sale  of  the  Western  lands;  tevondly,  the  go 
vernment  of  the  Western  settlements  within  the  Fede 
ral  domain, 

On  the  9th  May,  Corgress  proceeded  in  the  se 
cond  reading  of  the  Ordinance,  and  it  was  ordered 
to  be  transcribed,  and  the  next  day  was  assigned 
for  a  third  reading.  On  the  10th  May,  when  it 
came  up  in  order,  it  was  postponed,  Messrs.  Gor- 
ham  and  King  were  then  present,  and  voting, 
as  appears  by  the  Journal.  From  the  llth  May  to 
the  6th  July,  Congress  only  met  and  adjourned, 
there  not  being  a  quorum  ;  and  on  the  llth  July, 
the  Committee  to  whom  it  had  been  referred,  re 
ported  the  Ordinance,  and  it  was  read  a  first  time 
on  the  12tb,  and  a  third  time  on  the  13th. 

The  passage  of  this  Ordinance  is  mentioned  in 
the  Pennsylvania  Packet  of  the  21st  July,  1787, 
published  in  Philadelphia,  by  John  Dunlap  and 
David  C.  Claypoole,  and  the  whole  appeared  at 
length  in  the  August  number  of  Matthew  Carey's 
American  Museum  for  that  \ear. 

The  Federal  Convention  adjourned  on  the  26th 
July  until  Monday,  the  6tli  August,  and  on 
Thur.-day,  the  2d  August,  Mr.  Pierce  Butler  ap 
peared  in  Congress,  in  New  York,  and  produced 
his  credentials  as  a  delegate  IVoin  South  Carolina. 

Ou  the  28th  August,  in  the  Federal  Convention, 
Mr.  Butler  and  Mr.  Pinckney  moved,  to  require 
fugitive  slaves  and  servants  to  be  delivered  up  like 
criminals.  TMs  was  opposed,  because  it  would 
oblige  the  Executive  of  the  States  to  do  it  at  the 
public  expense,  and  the  proposition  was  with 
drawn.  On  the  next  day  Mr.  Butler  moved  a  pro 
position  which  was  evidently  telsen  from  the  sixth 
article  of  the  Ordinance  of  the  13th  July,  and 
which  in  more  compact  phraseology  forms  the  third 
clause  of  the  second  section  of  the  fourth  article  of 
the  Constitution. 

After  the  adjournment  of  the  Convention,  on  the 
17th  September,  Mr.  Gorham.Mr.  King,  Mr.  But 
ler,  and  Mr.  Msidi.-on,  took  their  seats  iiiiain  in 
Congress,  at  Now  York,  and  wo  find  the  naines  of 
three  first  named  gentlemen  on  the  Journal,  on  the 
the  24th  September,  and  on  the  next,  day  that  of 
Mr.  Madison  also,  who,  on  the  30th,  wrote  to 
General  Washington  respecting  the  feelings  of 
Congress,  and  of  tho  people  in  relation  to  the  act 
of  the  Convention.  Ou  the  5th  of  October,  General 
St.  Cl air  was  elected  Governor,  and  Winthrop  Sar 
gent  Secretary  of  the  North- Western  Territory. 

By  a  convention  between  the  States  of  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia,  concluded  at  Beaufort,  on 
the  28th  of  April,  1789,  South  Carolina  ceded  to 
the  State  of  Georgia,  all  the  right,  title  and  claim, 
which  the  said  State  of  South  Carolina  had  to  the 
government,  sovereignty  and  jurisdiction  in  and 
over  the  lands,  west  of  the  most  northern  Branch 
of  the  Tugaloo  River,  and  also  the  right  of  pre 
emption  of  tho  soil  from  the  native  Indians,  and 
all  other  the  estate,  property  and  claim  which  tho 


State   of   South    Carolina  had  in    or   to   the  said     j 
lands,  and  on   the  9th   August,  in  the  same  year, 
made  a  cession  of  soil  and  jurisdiction  to  the  United 
States,  of  what  was  apparently   already  ceded  to 
Georgia. 

At  the  time  therefore  of  framing  the  Constitu 
tion,  the  settled  policy  of  the  United  States  was 
clearly  and  distinctly  defined  and  known  to  all  the 
members  of  the  Federal  Convention.  It  was—  1.  To 
dispose  of  the  public  lauds  ;  this  was  the  subject  of 
a  separate  system,  which  has  always  been  kept  by 
itself,  and  forms  the  business  of  a  distinct  depart 
ment  of  the  Government. 

2.  To  legislate   for    and  to   form    temporary  or 
Territorial  Governments,  for  the  Territory  belong 
ing  to  the  United  States. 

3.  To  provide  for  the  admission  of  new  States. 
All  these  powers  had   been  exercised,  without 

question,  by  Congress,  and  we  have  the  highest 
authority  for  saying,  that  the  power  of  acquiring 
territory,  necessarily  brings  with  it  the  power  of 
Legislation.  Whilst  in  its  territorial  form  it  does 
not  appear  to  have  been  doubted  that  such  a  power 
would  exist  without  any  positive  provision  in  the 
Constitution. 

A  provision  was  therefore  made  for  the  admis 
sion  of  the  new  States,  but  in  the  original  report 
the  Territories  were  entirely  omitted. 

Upon  a  suggestion,  however,  of  Mr.  Carroll  of 
Maryland,  who  was  afraid  that  the  claims  of  the 
United  States  to  the  Western  Territory  might  be 
denied,  if  not  mentioned  in  the  Constitution,  that 
which  now  forms  the  second  clause  of  the  third 
section  of  the  4th  article  was  adopted. 

The  whole  tuird  section  refers  1.  To  the  admission 
of  new  States.  2.  To  the  disposal  of  the  public 
lands,  which  is  included  in  the  words  "The  Con 
gress  shall  have  power  to  dispose  of  the  Territory, 
or  other  property  belonging  to  the  United  States," 
the  words  being  the  same  as  those  used  in  the  Land 
Ordinance  of  the  28th  May,  1785,  which  says,  "The 
Territory  ceded  .-hall  be  disposed  of  in  the  follow 
ing  manner.  3.  To  the  legislation  for  the 
temporary  government  of  the  Territories  which 
are  provided  for  in  the  words  "Congress  shall 
have  power  to  make  all  needful  rules  and 
regulations  respecting  the  Territory  or  other  pro 
perty  belonging  to  the  United  States"  using  the  word 
Territory  in  its  largest  sense  as  understood  in  the 
Deeds  of  Cession  and  in  the  Oidinance  of  13th 
July,  1787.  This  means  Jurisdiction  and  Sove 
reignty,  and  confers  upon  or  recognizes  in  Con 
gress  the  same  power  as  tad  been  exercised  by  the 
old  Congross. 

This  is  made  more  evident  when  we  refer  to  the 
concluding  .voids  in  this  clause,  "and  nothing  in 
this  constitution  shall  be  so  construed  as  to  preju 
dice  any  claims  of  the  United  States  or  oi'  any 
particular  States."  Now  this  means  neither  more 
nor  less  than  the  claims  of  either  to  the  jurisdic 
tion,  toil  and  sovereignty  of  the  Western  country. 

The  word  Territory,  in  its  largest  sense,  includes 
lands,  soil,  jurisdiction  and  sovereignty,  and  as 
the  power  lo  t>ell  includes  the  lesser  power  to  inort- 
gagu,  so  the  power  to  dispose  of  Territory,  suppos 
ing  it  used  in  its  most  extended  meaning,  includes 
the  power  to  sell  the  public  lauds  agreeably  to  the 
present  system,  which  commenced  before  the  adop 
tion  of  the  Constitution. 

The  cession  of  Virginia  included  in  it  Lake 
Michigan,  an  inland  sea,  half  of  Lake  Erie,  Huron 
and  Superior,  and  a  tract  of  country  equal  to  many 
of  the  kingdoms  of  the  old  world.  How  absurd, 
tht-n,  is  it  at  this  day  to  apply  to  a  constitution  for 
an  empire,  a  construction  which  would  be  reject 
ed,  not  simply  by  statesmen  of  enlarged  intellect, 
but  by  the  humblest  lawyer  that  ever  practiced 


before  a  justice  of  the  peace. 

The  words  territory  and  territories  as  used  in  the 
original  charters,  of  the  various  colonies,  in  the 
public  documents  preceding  and  succeeding  the 
articles  of  confederation  in  the  cessions  from  the 
various  States  and  in  the  contemporaneous  legisla 
tion  of  the  old  Congress,  included  soil,  land  and 
water  jurisdiction  domain  and  sovereignty.  The 
same  meaning  has  been  attached  to  them  in  our 
treaties  with  foreign  powers,  in  the  Acts  of  Con 
gress,  and  cve»  in  the  celebrated  resolution  for  the 
conditional  admission  of  Texas,  and  in  some  cases 
they  have  been  used  to  designate  the  whole  of  the 
United  States,  whether  States  or  Territories. 

The  original  title  to  a  new  country  is  founded 
on  the  right  of  discovery,  and  it  confers  upon  the 
nation  discovering  it  the  sovereignty  aud  jurisdic 
tion  with  the  right  of  pre-emption  of  the  soil  irom 
its  aboriginal  inhabitants.  This  right  belongs  to 
it  in  its  sovereign  capacity,  which  enables  it  to  ex 
tinguish  the  Indian  title  and  to  perfect  its  dominion 
ever  the  soil  and  dispose  of  it  according  to  its 
own  good  pleasure. 

In  the  neAv  territories  therefore  of  America,  dis 
covery  and  the  purchase  of  the  Indian  title,  vested 
in  the  government  the  soil,  jurisdiction  and  sove 
reignty  of  the  country,  and  of  course  of  its  inhabi 
tants. 

In  the  second  charter  of  Virginia,  in  1609,  the 
words  used  are  "  lands,  countries,  and  territories," 
and  in  the  second  charter  of  Carolina,  in  1677, 
the  grant  is  of  "all  that  province,  territory,  or 
tract  of  land,"  and  "  together  vith  all  and  sin 
gular,  the  port?,  harbours,  bays,  rivers,  and  inlets 
belonging  unto  the  province  or  territory  aforesaid," 
and  in  the  charter  of  the  province  of  Massachu 
setts*,  of  1091,  the  words  Province  arid  Territory 
are  used  as  synonymous,  aud  in  speaking  of  it  it 
is  called  by  William  and  Mary  "  our  said  Pro 
vince  or  Territory." 

In  the  Georgia  charter,  in    1732,  the  grant  was 
of  "  all  those  lands,  countries,  and  territories ;" 
and  the  7th  Article  of  the  definitive  Treaty  of  Peuce 
between  Great  Britain,  France   and   Spain,  con- ; 
eluded  at   Paris  on   the   10th  of  February,   1763, 
speaks  of  "tije  limits  of  the  British  and  French 
territories  on  the   continent  of  America,"  which; 
are  irrevocably  lixed  by  that  treaty. 

By  the  9th  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  fe 
deral  counts  were  directed  to  be  constituted  to  set 
tle  disputes  between  two  or  more  States,  concern 
ing  boundary,  jurisdiction  or  any  other  cause; 
whatever,  each  judge  of  such  courts  was  to  be 
sworn,  and  it  was  provided  that  "no  State  shall 
be  deprived  of  territory  for  f  he  benefit  of  the  United 
States."  All  controversies  concerning  the  private 
right  of  soil  claimed  under  differe'nt  grants  of  two 
or  more  States,  whose  jurisdiction,  as  they  may  re 
spect  such  lands,  had  been  adjusted,  were  to  be 
finally  determined  as  near  as  might  be  in  the  same 
manner  as  was  prescribed  for  deciding  disputes 
concerning  territorial  jurisdiction  between  different 
States. 

In  the  provisional  articles  of  peace  of  the  30th 
November,  1782,  the  King  of  Great  Britain  ac 
knowledged  the  independence  of  the  United 
States,  and  relinquished  all  claims  to  the  Govern 
ment  propriety  and  territorial  rights  of  the  same, 
and  every  part  tberewf. 

In  Jay's  Treaty,  in  the  9th  Article,  the  words 
"  territories  of  the  United  States"  are  used  in  the 
largest  sense,  comprehending  both  States  and  Ter 
ritories,  as  also  in  the  14th  Article,  which  secures 
a  reciprocal  and  perfect  liberty  of  navigation  and 
commerce  between  all  the  dominions  of  the  King 
of  Great  Britain  in  Europe  and  the  territories  of 
the  United  States. 


The  15th  and  16th  Articles  use  the  word  terri 
tories  in  the  same  extensive  sense,  and  tho  13th 
relates  to  the  admission  of  American  vessels  into 
the  ports  and  harbors  of  the  «'  British  territories 
in  the  East  Indies." 

The  same  extended  meaning  of  territory  and 
territories  is  to  be  found  in  the  law  and  other 
treaties  of  the  United  states,  as  in  the  Louisiana 
treaty,  by  which  France  ceded  to  the  United  Suites, 
"forever  and  in  full  sovereignty ,"  the  Territory  of 
Louisiana,  in  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  and  in  the  Con 
vention  ot'lS15,  "to  requisite  the  commerce  betwt-en 
the  territories  of  the  United  Stites  and  his  Britan 
nic  Majesty,"  in  the  Convention  with  Great  Bri 
tain  of  20th  October,  1818,  which  left  open  for  ten 
years  the  country  west  of  the  Stony  Mountains,  to 
the  vessels,  citizens  find  subjects  of  the  two  pow 
ers.  In  the  treaty  of  1819,  by  which  the  King  of 
Spain  ceded  to  the  United  States,  the  Territories 
of  East  and  West  Florida,  and  all  his  right  to  the 
territories  east  and  north  of  a  line  fixed  by  the 
treaty,  and  by  which  we  ceded  the  Territory  of 
Texas  to  Spaiu,  in  the  8th  section  of  the  Missouri 
Act  of  1820,  and  in  the  Convention  with  Great 
Britain,  of  the  6th  August,  1827,  "with  respect  to 
the  territory  on  the  north-west  coast  of  America, 
west  of  the  Stony  or  Rocky  Mountains— in  the 
Convention  betreen  the  Unitt  d  States  and  the  Re 
public  of  Texas,  of  the  25th  April,  1838 — in  the 
treaty  with  Great  Britain,  of  the  9th  August,  1842 
— in  the  joint  resolutions  for  annexing  Texas  to 
the  Uniied  States,  and  lastly,  in  the  celebrated 
treaty  of  the  15th  July,  1846,  which  was  "to  ter 
minate  the  state  of  doubt  and  uncertainty  which 
had  hitherto  prevailed  respecting  the  sovereignty 
and  government  of  the  territory  on  the  north-west 
coast  of  America,  lying  westward  of  the  Rocky  or 
Stony  Mountains. 

So  the  words  "rules  and  regulation"  in  the 
language  of  that  day,  included  all  ordinary  acts  of 
legislation,  as  well  as  the  framing  of  temporary 
governments  for  the  people  of  the  territo  rie>.  How 
much  has  been  done  for  the  prosperity  and  happi 
ness  of  our  beloved  country  under  the  words, 
"  Congress  shall  have  power  to  regulate  commerce 
with  foreign  nations,  and  among  the  several  States 
and  with  the  Indian  tribes." 

This  power  to  make  needful  rules  and  regula 
tion  was  to  be  carried  into  execution  by  Congress 
agreeably  to  the  first  article  of  the  Constitution. 

It  is  clear  that  the  legislative  body  of  the  United 
States,  the  Congress,  had  the  power  to  govern  the 
territories,  either  directly  or  by  the  intervention  of 
a  territorial  form  of  government,  whether  that  be 
of  the  first  or  second  grade,  and  this  depends  not 
only  upon  necessity  but  upon  the  express  terms  of 
the  Constitution,  which  leaves  not  a  shadow  of 
doubt  upon  the  subject.  Over  the  territories 
within  the  limits  of  the  Constitution  the  power 
of  Congress  is  supreme,  and  nil  territorial 
legislation  is  subordinate  to  it.  The  territo 
ries  belong  to  the  United  States,  and  its  supreme 
legislature,  the  Congress,  has  no  restrictions 
upon  the  legislation,  and  it  can  and  it  has, 
whenever  it  pleased,  prohibited  slavery,  ichich  is  a 
mere  municipal  institution  icithin  their  borders. 
What  other  legislative  body  has  any  power  within 
their  limits  ?  Certainly  not  the  Legislature  of  any 
State,  for  the  present  Territories,  which  are  all 
West  of  the  Mississippi,  never  belonged  to  any 
State  in  the  Union,  but  are  all  acquisitions  from 
foreign  powers.  If  the  Legislature  of  one  State 
has  *uch  power,  then  the  Legislatures  of  all  the 
other  States  have  the  same  power,  and,  of  course, 
the  Territories  would  be  subjected  to  the  disjointed 
legislation  of  sixteen  free  and  fifteen  slave  States. 
This  is  too  gross  an  absurdity  to  need  refutation, 


and  it  is  equally  absurd  to  say  that  each  man  car 
ries  with  him  the  laws  of  his  own  State,  for  that 
would  be  giving  to  a  citizen  a  power  which  is  de 
nied  to  the  Legislature  of  his  State,  and  to  the 
State  itself 

These  positions  are  entirely  supported  by  the 
whole  legislation  of  Congress  from  1789  to  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  act.  On  the  7th  August,  1789, 
Congress  passed  an  act  to  provide  for  the  govern 
ment  of  the  Territory  North-west  of  the  river 
Ohio,  which,  after  reciting  that,  in  order  that  the 
Ordinance  of  the  United  States  in  Congress  as 
sembled,  for  the  government  of  the  territory  North 
west  of  the  river  Ohio,  may  continue  to  have  full 
effect,  it  is  requisite  that  certain  provisions  should 
be  made,  so  as  to  adapt  the  same  to  the 
present  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
enacted  that  all  communications  which  were 
directed  to  be  made  by  the  Governor  to  Congress 
or  their  officers,  should  be  made  to  the  President, 
and  that  the  officers  which,  by  the  Ordinance, 
were  to  be  appointed  by  Congress,  should  be  ap 
pointed  by  the  President,  by  and  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  in  cases  where  the 
United  States  in  Congress  assembled  might,  by  the 
Ordinance,  revoke  any  commission  or  remove  from 
any  office,  the  President  was  to  have  the  same 
powers  of  revocation  and  removal;  and  in  the  case 
of  the  death,  removal,  or  necessary  absence  of  the 
Governor,  the  Secretary  :  was  to  perform  all  his 
duties  during  the  vacancy.  This  act  was  neces 
sary  in  order  to  transfer  the  Executive  powers, 
which  had  been  exercised  by  the  Congress  of  the 
confederation,  to  the  Chief  Magistrate,  to  whom 
they  were  confided  by  the  new  Constitution.  This 
is  a  clear,  unqualified  recognition  and  ratification 
of  the  Ordinance  in  its  double  character  of  a  law 
and  a  compact,  and  was  made  by  a  Congress  of 
which  Mr.  Madison 'and  other  delegates  iu  the 
late  federal  Convention  were  members. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  has  not 
the  word  slave  in  it — our  ancestors  would  have 
been  ashamed  to  send  it  down  to  posterity  as  a 
slave  document,  and  there  are  but  five  places  in. 
the  Constitution  in  which  there  is  any  allusion  to 
this  class  of  persons. 

1.  In  the  3d  clause  of  the  2d  section  of  the  first 
article  "Representatives   and  direct    taxes  shall 
be  apportioned   among    the    several  Slates   which 
may  be  included  in  this  Union  according  to   their 
respective  number*,  which  shall  be  determined  by 
adding   to  the  whole  number  of  free  persons,   in- 
cl  ding  those  bound  to  service  for  a  term  of  years 
and  excluding   Indians   not  taxed,  three-fifths  of 
all  other  persons. 

2.  In  the  fii>t  clause  of  the  ninth  section  of  the 
first  article,  which  is  obsolete,  "The  migration  or 
importation  of  sitchpcrsonx  as  any  of  the  States  now 
existing  shall  think   proper  to  admit  shall  not  bo 
prohibited  by  the  Congress  prior  to  tho  year  1808, 
but  a  tax  or  duty  may  he  imposed  on  such  persons 
not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each  jjerson." 

3.  The  fourth  clause  of  the  same  section—"  No 
capitation  or  other  direct  tax  shall  lie  hi  id  unless 
in  proportion  to  the  census  or  enumeration  herein 
before  directed  to  be  taken,"  referring  to  the  tnird 
clause  of  the  second  section  already  quoted. 

4.  The  third  clause  of  the  second  section  Of  the 
fourth  article-  "  No  person  held  to  service  or  la 
bor  in  one  St^te  under  the  laws  thereof  escaping 
into  another  shall    in   consequence   of  any  law  or 
regulation  therein  bo  discharged  from  sue'hservice 
or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of  tho 
party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  bo  due." 

5.  The   fifth  article  relates  to  the  amendment 
and  has  a  proviso  which  is  now  obsolete— ."  Pro 
vided   that  no   amendment  which  may  bo  made 


prior  to  the  year  1808  shall  in  any  manner  affect 
the  first  and  fourth  clauses  of  the  ninth  section  of 
the  first  article." 

The  2nd  and  5th  of  these  paragraphs  are  ohso- 
lete.  but  in  all  and  every  of  them  slaves  are  spoken 
of  as  persons  not  things",  as  human  beings  and  not 
as  chattels  or  property.  The  first  relates  to  the 
census  and  enumeration,  for  representatives  and 
direct  taxation,  and  they  are  expressly  called  per 
sons,  are  numbered  and  classed  as  a  part  of  the 
population  of  the  United  States,  and  are  so  counted 
and  considered,in  relation  to  the  other  nations  of  the 
•world.  For  the  purposes  only  of  representation  and 
direct  taxation,  having  no  voice  in  electing  the 
one,  or  in  lading  the  other,  they  are  rated  at  5  to 
3  in  order  to  reduce  the  power  of  the  actual  voters 
in  those  States  were  they  exist  by  force  ef  munici 
pal  law  only.  The  3d  paragraph  is  inserted  from 
a  wise  caution,  for  if  a  capitation  or  poll  tax  had 
been  laid  without  this  special  reference  of  it  to  the 
representative  numbers,  it  would  have  been  im 
posed  upon  each  head  of  the  whole  population, 
whether  white  or  black,  slave  or  free,  as  a  direct 
tax  means  a  tax  assessed  on  real  estate,  as  houses 
and  lands. 

The  4th  paragraph,  which  has  been  the  subject 
of  so  much  controversy,  is  clear  upon  this  point. 
The  fugitives  from  labor  are  called  and  treated  as 
persons  only,  and  this  provision  has  been  held  to 
apply  to  white  apprentices  and  other  persons,  who 
are  not  called  slaves,  in  any  of  the  States  of  the 
Union. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  Constitution  imposes 
no  limit  upon  the  power  ot  Congress  over  slavery 
in  the  Territories  or  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
in  .which  la-%  it  is  expressly  empowered  "  to  exer 
cise  exclusive  legislation  in  all  cases  whatsoever." 

But  there  have  been  repeated  recognitions  of  the 
validity  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  since  the  adop 
tion  of  the  Constitution,  and  every  new  State 
within  the  original  limits  of  the  United  States, 
with  the  exception  of  Vermont  and  Kentucky,  has 
been  admitted  by  virtue  and  in  pursuance  of  its 
provisions. 

The  cession  by  North  Carolina  of  her  lerriiory 
west  of  the  mountains  to  the  United  States,  on  the 
25rh  of  February,  1790,  was  made  and  accepted 
upon  the  express  condition  that  all  the  provisions 
of  the  ordinance  of  1787  should  be  extended  to  it 
with  the  exception  of  the  6th  article. 

On  the  24th  of  April,  1802,  by  articles  of  cession 
and  agreement,  Georgia  ceded  to  the  United  States 
all  her  right  to  the  jurisdiction  and  soil  of  the 
lands  within  the  boundaries  of  the  United  States, 
south  of  the  State  of  Tennessee,  and  west  of  the 
Catachouchee,  upon  conditions  similar  to  those  in 
the  cession  by  North  Carolina.  Out  of  these  two 
grants  have  arisen  three  Territorial  Governments, 
all  administered  under  the  provisions  of  the  great 
Ordinance,  and  out  of  these  three  Territories,  three 
States  have  come  into  the  Union,  viz  : — Tennessee, 
admitted  on  l.-t  June,  1796;  Mississippi,  on  10th 
December,  1817,  and  Alabama,  on  the  14th  De 
cember  1819.  In  their  Constitutions,  and  in  the 
acts  of  admission,  and  in  the  two  latter  cases  in 
the  sicts  of  Congress  passed  preparatory  to  tbeir 
formation  of  Si.ate  Governments,  the  Ordinance  of 
1787  is  distinctly  recognised  and  made  tne  basis 
of  both  Congressional  and  State  action. 

It  can  therefore  be  truly  and  emphatically  said 
that  Tennessee,  Mississippi  and  Alabama,  are  States 
by  virtue  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  and  thnt  they 
should  be  the  very  last  in  the  Union  to  dispute  the  va 
lidity  or  constitutionality  of  this  celebrated  compact, 
to  which  they  owe  their  independent  existence  as 
component  members  of  the  confederacy. 

Ou  the  7th  May,  1800,  the  North    Western  Ter 


rit«ry  was  divided,  and  a  new  Territory  crea 
ted  called  Indiana,  and  on  3d  February,  1809, 
the  Illinois  Territory  was  also  taken  from  Indiana. 
All  these  acts  of  Congress  established  govern 
ments  in  conformity  to  the  Ordinance  of  1787, 
and  the  act  of  the  7tk  August,  1789,  and  extended 
the  privileges  secured  to  the  people  of  the  Terri 
tory  North  West  of  the  river  Ohio  by  the  Ordi 
nance,  to  the  inhabitants  of  these  respective  Ter 
ritories. 

The  various  acts  enabling  the  people  of  Ohio, 
Indiana  and  Illinois  to  form  Constitutions  and 
State  Governments  preparatory  to  admission  into 
the  Union — the  Constitutions,  thus  formed,  and 
the  acts  admitting  them,  recognised  all  tbe  prin 
ciples  of  the  Ordinance  in  their  fullest  extent. 

Ohio  was  admitted  into  the  Union  on  the  19th 
February,  1803,  Indiana  on  the  llth  December, 
1816,  and  Illinois  on  the  3d  December,  1818.  By 
the  Act  of  19ih  April,  1816,  (which  is  a  type  of  the 
others,)  providing  for  the  admission  of  Indiana,  it 
is  enacted  that  the  Consiitution  and  State  Goven- 
ment,  "whenever  formed,  shall  be  republican  and 
not  repugnant  to  those  articles  of  the  Ordinance  of 
the  13th  July,  1787,  which  are  declared  to  be  irre 
vocable  between  the  original  States  and  the  people 
and  States  North-west  of  the  River  Ohio,  except 
ing  so  much  of  the  said  articles  as  relate  to  the 
boundaries  of  the  States  thirein  formed." 

And  by  the  preamble  of  the  resolution  of  Con 
gress,  of  the  llth  December,  1816,  admitting  In 
diana,  it  is  expressly  declared  that  the  "Constitu 
tion  and  State  Government  so  formed  is  Republi 
can  and  in  conformity  to  the  principles  of  tbe  arti 
cles  of  compact  between  the  original  States  and 
the  people  and  States  in  the  Territory  North-west 
of  the  River  Ohio,  passed  on  the  thirteenth  day 
of  July,  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty- 
seven." 

We  are  now  to  trace  the  Congressional  history 
of  tbe  legislation  in  relation  to  the  Territory  of 
Louisiana,  purchased  by  Mr.  Jefferson  from  France. 

By  the  act  of  the  31st  October,  1803,  all  the 
military,  civil  and  judicial  powers  exercised  by  the 
officers  of  the  existing  government  of  Louisiana 
were  temporarily  vested  in  such  persons,  and  to  be 
exercised  in  such  manner  as  the  President  should 
direct,  for  maintaining  and  protecting  its  inhabi 
tants  in  the  free  enjoyment  of  their  liberty,  pro 
perty  and  religion,  and  by  the  act  of  the  21st 
March,  1804,  it  was  divided  into  two  Territories, 
the  southern  part  being  called  the  Territory  of 
Orleans,  and  the  residue  of  the  ceded  province  was 
named  the  District  of  Louisiana.  The  Orleans 
Territory  bad  a  Governor,  Secretary,  Judges  and 
Legislative  Council,  whilst  the  District  of  Louis 
iana  was  to  be  governed  by  the  Governor  and  the 
Judges  of  tke  Indiana  Territory.  The  7th  section 
contained  stringent  provisions  against  the  impor 
tation  of  slaves  from  other  States,  except  under 
particular  restrictions,  and  all  slaves  imported  con 
trary  to  this  act  were  entitled  to  their  freedom. 
^On  the  2d  March.  1805,  an  act  further  providing 
for  the  government  of  the  Territory  of  Orleans 
was  passed,  by  which  the  President  was  author 
ized  to  establish  within  that  Territory  a  govern 
ment  in  all  respects  similar  (except  as  thereinafter 
provided)  to  that  then  exercised  in  the  Mississippi 
Territory,  and  he  was  also  to  appoint  all  officers 
necessary  therein,  in  conformity  with  the  ordi 
nance  of  Congress,  made  on  the  13th  day  of  July, 
1787,  and  the  inhabitants  of  the  Territory  of  Or 
leans  were  to  be  entitled  to  all  the  rights,  privi-1 
leges  and  advantages  secured  by  the  said  ordinance, 
and  those  enjoyed  by  the  people  of  the  Mississippi 
Territory. 

So  much  of  the  said  Ordinance  of  Congress  as 
• 


8 


relates  to  the  organization  and  powers  of  a  Gene 
ral  Assembly,  were  to  be  in  force  after  the  4th  of 
July,  1805,  and  it  was  provided  that  the  second 
paragraph  of  the  said  Ordinance,  which  regulates 
the  descent  and  distribution  of  estates,  and  also 
the  6th  article  of  Compact,  which  is  annexed  to 
and  makes  part  of  said  Ordinance,  were  not  to  ex 
tend  to,  but  were  excluded  from,  all  operation 
within  the  said  Territory  of  Orleans 

Whenever  it  should  be  ascertained  by  a  census 
taken  by  the  proper  authority,  that  the  number  of 
free  inhabitants  amounted  to  60,000,  then  they 
were  authorized  to  form  for  themselves  a  constitu 
tion  and  State  government,  and  be  admitted  into 
the  Union  upon  the  footing  of  the  original  States, 
in  all  respects  whatever,  conformably  to  (he  pro 
visions  of  the  3d  Article  of  the  Treaty  concluded 
at  Paris,  on  the  30th  day  of  April,  1803,  between 
the  United  States  and  the  French  Republic; 
Provided  that  the  Constitution  so  to  be  establish 
ed  shall  be  Republican  and  not  inconsistent  with 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  nor  inconsis 
tent  icith  the  Ordinance  of  the  late  Congress,  JM seed 
the  13th  day  of  July,  1787,  so  far  as  the  same  is 
made  applicable  to  the  territorial  government  there 
by  authorized  to  be  established. 

On  the  3d  March,  1805,  Congress  passed  another 
act  providing  for  the  government  of  the  District  of 
Louisiana,  which  changed  its  name  to  that  of  the 
Territory  of  Louisiana,  vested  the  executive  power 
in  a  Governor  and  Secretary  and  appointed  three 
Judges,  to  whom  and  to  the  governor  the  Legis 
lative  power  was  given. 

By  an  act  passed  20th  February,  1811,  the  in 
habitants  of  the  Territory  of  Orleans,  within  the 
limits  therein  described,  were  authorized  to  form 
a.  State  Constitution  and  Government  under  the 
provisions,  and  upon  the  conditions  thereinafter 
mentioned.  If  the  Constitution  so  formed  was  not 
disapproved  of  by  Congress  at  their  next  session 
after  its  receipt,  the  State  was  to  be  admitted  into 
the  Union.  The  Constitution  was  so  formed  in 
pursuance  of  this  act,  and  on  the  8th  of  J.pril, 
1812,  Louisiana  was  admitted  into  the  Union  upon 
the  conditions  expressed  in  that  act,  and  the  act  of 
1811. 

Ou  the  4th  June,  1S12,  Congress  passed  an  act 
providing  for  the  government  of  the  Territory  of 
Missouri,  by  which  the  Territory  heretofore  called 
Louisiana  was  called  Missouri,  and  was  organized 
by  vesting  the  Executive  power  in  a  Governor, 
with  a  Secretary  and  a  Legislative  power  in  a 
general  assembly,  consisting  of  the  Governor,  a 
Legislative  Council  and  aHouse  of  Representatives, 
and  the  citizens  were  authorized  to  elect  a  delegate 
from  the  said  Territory  in  Congress.  This  act  tm-  I 
bodied  some  of  the  most  important  principles  of  the 
Ordinance  of  1787. 

By  an  act  passed  the  2d  March,  1819,  the  South 
ern  part  of  the  Missouri  Territory  was  erected  into 
a  separate  government,  called  Arkansas.  The  Exe 
cutive  power  was  vested  in  a  Governor  with  a  Se 
cretary,  the  judicial  in  three  Judges,  and  the  le 
gislative  in  the  Governor  and  Judges,  until  the 
organization  of  the  General  Assembly,  which  was 
to  take  place  whenever  tbe  Governor  was  satisfied 
it  was  tbe  wish  of  a  majority  of  the  freeholders,  at 
which  time  they  were  al>o  allowed  to  elect  a  dele 
gate  to  Congress.  By  an  act  relative  to  the  Ar 
kansas  Territory,  passed  the  21st  April,  1820,  the 
act  of  the  4th  June,  above  quoted,  as  modified  by 
tbe  act  of  the  29th  of  April,  1816,  was  to  be  con- 
.sidered  as  applicable  to  she  government  of  the  Ter 
ritory  of  Arkansas,  and  to  have  reference  to  the 
proceedings  of  the  said  Territory  in  the  organiza 
tion  of  the  second  grade  of  the  Territorial  govern 
ment,  assumed  by  the  said  Territory,  under  the 


said  act  of  2d  March,  1819. 

The  narrative  of  the  consistent  and  unvarying 
legislation  by  Congress,  both  in  regard  to  the  ad 
mission  of  States  and  the  government  ot  Terri 
tories,  brings  us  to  the  Missouri  question,  which 
terminated  in  the  celebrated  Compromise,  which 
pro-slm-ery  })ohticians  of  the  present  day  declare 
to  be  unconstitutional. 

By  the  purchase  of  Louisiana  we  bad  acquired  a 
claim  to  what  was  called  Texas,  and  our  Western 
boundary  in  that  quarter,  between  us  and  Spain, 
was  unsettled  and  undefined.  Spain  owned  the 
Florida?,  which,  by  a  resolution  and  acts  passed 
in  secret  session  in  1811  and  1812,  but  not  pub 
lished  until  1818,  Congress  had  determined  should 
not  pass  into  any  other  hands  than  our  own. 

By  the  treaty  of  tbe  22d  February,  1819,  we  ac 
quired  the  Floridas,  and  ceded  to  Spain  all  our 
claims  to  territory  lyinsr  South  and  West  of  a  boun 
dary  line  West  of  the  Mississippi,  beginning  at  the 
mouth  of  tbe  Sabine  River  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico, 
and  termirating  on  the  parallel  of  42  N.  latitude 
in  the  South  Sea,  including  in  such  cession  the 
province  of  Texas. 

The  people  of  the  Missouri  Territory  applied  to 
Congress  m  the  winter  of  1818-1819,  for  the  pas 
sage  of  an  act  to  enable  them  to  form  a  Constitu 
tion  and  State  government,  preparatory  to  their 
admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State.  Such  an  act 
passed  the  House  of  Representatives,  but  with  a 
clause  declaring  that  '•'  the  further  introduction  of 
slavery  or  involuntary  servitude,  except  for  the 
punishment  of  crimes  whereof  the  party  shall 
have  been  duly  convicted,  shall  be  prohibited,  and 
all  chilqren  born  within  the  said  Territory  after  its 
admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  shall  be  free, 
but  may  be  held  to  service  until  the  age  of  twenty- 
one  years/'  which  was,  however,  negatived  in  the 
Senate. 

Their  application  was  renewed  at  the  next  ses 
sion.  In  the  meantime  the  three  great  States  of 
New  York, Pennsylvania  and  Ohio,  had  unanimous 
ly  remonstrated  against  the  admission  of  Missouri, 
except  with  the  restriction  above  mentioned.  The 
House  adhered  to  its  lormer  determination,  whilst 
the  Senate  was  equally  obstinate,  and  complicated 
the  question  by  uniting  the  fate  of  Missouri  with 
that  of  Maine,  which  by  the  terms  of  tne  act  of 
Massachusetts,  must  procure  the  assent  of  Con 
gress  before  the  4th  of  March,  1820.  In  order, 
however,  to  induce  some  of  the  majority  of  the 
Hou?e  to  give  way.  the  Senate  passt  d  what  is  now 
the  8th  section  of  the  act  of  6th  March,  1820,  pro- 
hibitin«r  slavery  in  all  the  territory  ceded  under  the 
name  of  Louisiana,  north  of  latitude  36  degrees  30 
minutes  and  west  of  the  State  of  Missouri.  After 
a  very  protracted  struggle,  the  clause  prohibiting 
slavery  in  the  State  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  90  to  87, 
and  the  8th  section  as  it  now  stands  was  carried' 
by  an  overwhelming  majority.  This  forms  what 
is  called  the  Missouri  Compromise, 

The,  whole  real  contest  during  the  tioo  sessions  was 
in  relation  to  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  Slate. 
"  On  that  occasion,"  says  Jud_ce  Story,  "  the 
question  was  largely  discussed  whether  Congress 
possessed  a  Constitutional  authority  to  impose'sucTi 
a  restriction,  upon  the  ground  that  the  prescrib 
ing  of  such  condition  is  inconsistent  with  the  sove 
reignty  of  the  State  to  be  admitted,  and  its  equali 
ty  with  the  other  States.  The  final  result  of  the 
vote  which  mitborized  the  erection  of  that  State 
seems  to  establish  the  rightful  authority  of  Con 
gress  to  impose  such  a  restriction,  though  u  was 
"ot  then  applied." 

This  is  strictly  true,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that 
Misssouri  never  would  have  been  admitted  except 
with  this  restriction  or  condition,  but  for  the  fact 


9 


that  the  Senate  connected  it  with  the  admission  of 
Maine,  which  gave  the  advocates  of  Missouri  the 
votes  of  the  members  from  that  district,  as  well 
as  of  those  of  several  other  New  England  Con 
gressmen. 

The  vote  on  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the 
Territory,  in  tbe  8th  Section,  was  in  the  Senate 
34  to  10,  and  in  the  House  134  to  42,  and,  de 
ducting  from  the  minority  five  votes,  who 
believed  Congress  bad  the  power,  it  made  the 
House  vote  really  139  to  37,  majorities 
showing  the  entire  confidence  of  born  bo 
dies  in  the  constitutionality,  as  well  as 
the  expediency  of  extending  the  benefits  of  the 
6th  Article  of  tbe  Ordinance  to  the  Territories  west 
of  the  Mississippi.  In  pursuance  of  this  act  Mis 
souri  formed  her  constitution  and  asked  for  admis 
sion;  but  she  had,  by  a  provision  in  it  in  relation  to 
free  negroes,  created  another  ground  of  opposition, 
which,  after  various  reports?  and  debates,  was  ter 
minated  by  a  resolution  of  the  2d  of  March,  1821, 
admitting  Missouri  into  the  Union  upen  the  fun 
damental  condition  that  this  clause  shall  never  be 
construed  to  authorize  the  passage  of  a  law,  and 
that  no  law  shall  be  pa.-sed  iu  conformity  thereto, 
by  which  any  citizen  of  either  of  tbe  States  in  this 
Union  shall  be  excluded  from  the  enjoyment  of  any 
of  the  privileges  and  immunities  to  which  such 
citizen  is  entitled  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  upon  the  Legislature  of  Mis 
souri  declaring  the  assent  of  the  State  t©  this  fun 
damental  condition  by  a  solemn  public  act,  to  be 
transmitted  on  or  before  the  4th  of  November, 
1821,  to  the  President,  who,  upon  its  receipt, 
should  by  proclamation  announce  the  fact,  where 
upon  and  without  any  further  proceeding  on  the 
part  of  Congress  tbe  admission  should  be  consider 
ed  as  complete.  This  condition  was  accepted  by 
the  act  of  the  26th  of  June,  1821,  and  on  the  10th 
of  August  following  the  President  issued  his  pro 
clamation  declaring  the  admission  of  Missouri 
complete  according  to  law. 

General  Washington,  Mr.  Adams.  Mr.  Jefferson, 
Mr.  Madison  and  Mr.  Monroe  had  directly  affirmed 
the  constitutionality  of  the  Ordinance  by  approving 
acts  of  Congress  confirming  or  recognizing  it,  and 
by  the  performance  of  various  executive  t unctions 
devolved  upon  them  by  its  provisions.  In  fact  no 
President  in  the  early  stages  of  the  government 
could  hardly  have  passed  a  day  without  its  being 
brought  before  him,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  some 
way  or  other.  Congress  recognized  its  validity, 
and  six  States  had  been,  admitted  into  the  Union 
by  virtue  and  in  pursuance  of  its  provisions,  and 
three  of  them  within  the  original  North-western 
Territory,  with  articles  against  the  existence  of 
slavery  within  their  limits,  in  conformity  to  the 
Ordinance  and  the  acts  of  Congress  enabling  them 
to  form  their  constitutions  and  State  governments. 

The  8th  section  of  the  Missouri  Act  was  a  copy 
of  the  6th  article,  and  was  simply  extending  its 
effect  to  uninhabited  territory  which  had  neither 
slaves  nor  white  freemen  in  it.  Its  intention  was 
to  preserve  the  soil  for  a  white  homogeneous  popu 
lation,  which  the  experience  of  our  country  has 
proved  to  be  the  best,  the  happiest,  and  the  strong 
est.  It  took  no  man's  property,  and  it  injured  no 
man. 

Mr.  Clay,  of  Kentucky,  Mr.  Lowndes,  of  South 
Carolina,  and  every  eminent  man  from  the  South, 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  were  in  favor  of 
the  8th  Section,  as  constitutional,  fair  and  just. 
Mr.  Sergeant, and  the  Northern  phalanx,  of  course 
believed  it  constitutional,  and  took  it  when  de 
feated  in  the  restriction  upon  tbe  State  of  Mis 
souri,  and  Judge  Baldwin,  who  was  opposed  to 
the  restriction  on  the  State,  voted  for  the  restric 


tion  on  the  Territory  as  entirely  constitutional. 

The  votes  in  the  Senate  prove  the  same  state  of 
things  there.  There  was,  however,  one  gieat  m  n, 
the  most  accomplished  lawyer  of  his  day,  William 
Pinkney,  of  Maryland,  whose  deliberate  opinion 
was  exceedingly  valuable.  He  bad  been  elected 
to  the  Senate  on  the  23d  December,  1819,  and  had 
accepted  with  a  view  to  the  great,  question  of  slave 
restriction.  On  the  21st  January,  1820,  he  spoko 
three  hours  in  favor  of  the  admission  of  Missouri 
without  restriction,  without  finishing  his  argu 
ment,  and  on  the  24th  resumed  tLe  remarks  he 
commenced  on  Friday  and  spoke  nearly  two  hours 
in  conclusion.  It  was  justly  considered  one  of  his 
moct  brilliant  efforts,  but  it  was  never  icported, 
and  we  have  only  such  parts  of  it  as  Mr.  Wbeaton 
was  able  to  make  out  from  Mr.  Pinkney's  note*. 
These  are  preserved  and  inserted  in  bis  life  by 
Mr.  Wheatcm.  Mr.  Wbeaton,  p.  612,  says': 
"after  going  through  with  that  part  of  his  argument 
relating  to  this  clause  of  the  Constitution,  which 
I  have  not  been  able  to  restore  from  the  imperfect 
notes  in  my  possession,  Mr.  Pinkney  concluded  his 
speech  by  expressing  a  hope  that  (what  he  deemed) 
the  perilous  principles  urged  by  those  in  favor  of 
the  restriction  upon  the  new  States  would  be  dis 
avowed  or  explained,  or  that  at  all  events  the  ap 
plication  of  them  to  the  subject  under  discussion 
would  not  be  pressed,  but  that  it  might  be  disposed 
of  in  a  manner  satisfactory  to  all  by  n  prospective 
prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  territory  to  the  north 
and  west  of  Missouri." 

This  synopsis  of  the  conclusion  of  his  speech  is 
shown  to  be  perfectly  correct  by  a  letter  of  Mr. 
Pinkuey  to  bis  son-in-law,  Mr.  Cumberland  D. 
Williams,  dated  February,  1820.  [Wbeaton,  p. 
167.]  "The  bill  (writes  Mr.  Pinkney)  for  tbe  ad 
mission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union  (without  re 
striction  as  to  slavery)  may  be  considered  as  past. 
That  bill  was  sent  back  again,  this  morning,  from 
the  House,  icith  the  restriction  as  to  slavery.  The  . 
Senate  voted  to  amend  it  by  striking  out  the  re 
striction,  (27  to  15,)  and  proposed,  as  another 
amendment,  which  I  have  all  along  been  an  advo 
cate  of,  a  restriction  upon  the  vacant  territory  to 
tbe  North  and  West  as  to  slavery.  To-night  the 
House  of  Representatives  have  agreed  to  both  of 
these  amendments,  in  opposition  to  their  former 
votes,  and  this  affair  is  settled.  To-morrow  we 
shall,  of  course,  recede  from  our  amendments  as 
to  Maine,  (our  object  being  effected,)  and  both 
States  will  be  admitted.  This  happy  result  has 
been  accomplished  by  the  conference  of  which  I 
was  a  member  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  and  of 
which  I  prepared  the  report  which  has  been  made." 

On  the  25th  January,  1820,  Mr.  King,  of  New 
York,  took  his  seat  in  the  Senate,  having  been 
elected  on  tho  8th  January,  and  on  the  llth  of 
February  spoke  about  two  hours  in  support  of  the 
right  and  expediency  of  restricting  the  contempla 
ted  State  of  Missouri  from  permitting  slavery 
therein,  and  yet  tho  author  of  the  second  life  of 
Mr.  Pinkney  (his  neuhew)  speaks. or'  Mr.  Pinkney'i 
speech  being  an  answer  to  Mr.  King,  and  that 
Mr.  King  was  so  struck  by  it  that  he  never  replied 
to  it. 

The  Missouri  bill  having  been  presented  to  tbe 
President,  Mr.  Monroe,  he  requested  the  written 
opinions  of  his  cabinet  upon  two  questions,  the 
first  was  whether  Congress  has  the  Constitutional 
right  to  prohibit  slavery  in  a  Territory.  The 
second  was  whether  the  eighth  section  of  the  Mis 
souri  bill  was  consistent  with  the  Constitution?' 
The  answers  to  both  were  unanimously  in  the  af 
firmative. 

The  members  of  Mr.  Monroe's  cabinet  were  the\ 
most   distinguished   statesmen  and  jurists  of  the 


10 


day.  Mr.  Adams  was  Secretary  of  State,  Mr. 
Crawford  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Judge 
Thompson  (afterwards  of  the  Supreme  Court  wf 
the  United  States)  secretary  of  the  Navy,  Mr. 
\Virt  of  Virginia,  a  profound  )aw>er,  Attorney- 
General,  and  Mr.  Calhoun  Secretary  of  War,  the 
latter  having  been  elected  a  member  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  during  the  war,  and  as  such 
continued  until  his  appointment  to  the  cabinet 
on  the  8th  October,  1817. 

These  facts  appear  by  the  papers  of  Mr.  Mon 
roe,  the  Diary  of  Mr.  Adams,  and  subsequent  re 
searches,  and  by  the  clear  admissions  of  Mr.  Cal 
houn,  made  in  debate  in  the  Senate,  in  1838. 

Any  reasona  le  man  would  have  supposed  that 
this  decision  made  with  the  assent  of  every  con 
stitutional  jurist  and  statesman  in  the  country, was 
a  final  settlement  of  a  question  which  would  never 
again  be  disturbed  so  long  as  the  Constitution 
itself  was  in  existence. 

It  became  the  uniform  rule  under  every  succeed- 
ing  President, Mr.  Adams,  General  Jackson  and 
Mr.  Tyler — the  latter  extending  it  in  the  most  li 
beral  manner  to  the  case  of  the  annexation  of 
Texas. 

TEXAS  AND    THE    MISSOURI  COMPROMISE. 

The  treaty  for  the  annexation  of  Texas  having 
failed  in  the  Senate,  it  was  determined  to  eff.  ct 
the  same  object  by  a  joint  resolution  of  Congress. 
This  was  undoubtedly  tbe  scheme  of  Mr.  Calhoun, 
who,  as  Secretary  of  State,  and  the  Southern 
leader,  was  the  great  master  spirit. 

On  the  25th  January,  1845,  a  joint  resolution 
for  annexing  Texas  to  the  United  States,  upon 
terms  similar  to  the  rejected  treaty  which  had  been 
reported  by  Mr.  C.  J.  Ingersoll  from  the  Commit 
tee  on  Foreiga  Affairs,  with  an  amendment  offered 
by  Mr.  Weller,  and  an  amendment  to  the  arm-nd- 
ment  offered  by  Mr,  Douglas,  were  under  cuuside- 
ra  ion  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  the  hour 
fixed  for  the  termination  of  the  debate  bv  the 
House  having  arrived,  the  Committee  proceeded  to 
vote  on  them  and  the  several  propositions  subse 
quently  offered. 

The  amendment  of  Mr.  Douglas  to  the  amend 
ment  of  Mr.  Weller,  and  various  others  offered  by 
other  gentlemen,  were  successively  rejected,  until 
Mr.  Milton  Brown,  of  Tennessee,  submitted  an 
amendment  to  it,  striking  out  the  amendments  of 
Mr.  Wt-ller,  after  the  word  "resolved,"  and  insert 
ing  what  formed  the  real  substance  of  the  joint 
resolution  as  it  passed  both  branches  of  Congress. 

Tho  first  section  gave  ttfe  consent  of  Congress 
to  the  erection  of  tho  Territory  belonging  to  the 
Republic  of  Texas  into  a  new  State,  to  be  culled  the 
State  of  Texas,  with  a  Republican  form  of  govern 
ment,  in  order  that  the  s>un«  may  be  admitted  as 
one  of  the  States  of  this  Union. 

The  second  section,  "  Resolved,  That  the  fore 
going  con.-ent  of  Congress  is  given  upon  the  follow 
ing  conditions yK&di  with  the  following  guarantees, 
to  wit  : 

The  third  of  which  was  in  these  words,  "New 
States  of  a  convenient  size,  not  exceeding  four  in 
number,  in  addition  to  said  State  of  Texas,  and 
having  sufficient  population,  may  hereafter,  by 
tho  consent  of  said  State,  be  formed  out  of  the 
Territory  thereof,  which  shall  be  entitled  to  admis 
sion  under  the  provisions  of  the  Federal  Constitu- 
(tion,  and  such  States  as  may  be  formed  out  of  that 
'portion  of  said  Territory,  lying  South  of  30°  30" 
North  latitude,  commonly  known  as  the  Missouri 
Compromise  Line,  shall  be  admittc'l  into  the  Union 
rwith  or  without  Slavery,  as  the  people  of  each 
State  asking  admission  may  desire." 


Mr.  Douglass  (of  Illinois)  asked  the  gentleman 
from  Tennessee  to  accept  the  following  as  a  modi 
fication  of  his  amendment,  to  come  in  after  the 
List  clause:  ''And  in  such  States  as  shall  be  formed 
o,ut  of  said  Territory,  North  of  said  Missouri  Com 
promise  Line,  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude,  ex 
cept  for  crime,  shall  be  prohibited." 

Mr.  M.  Erown  accepted  the  modification,  and 
the  amendment  or  substitute  as  modified,  was 
adopted,  and  the  resolution  in  this  shape  finally 
passed  the  House  on  the  same  day. 

In  the  Senate  another  section  was  added,  allow 
ing  the  President,  if  he  deemed  it  expedient,  in 
stead  of  submitting  the  foregoing  resolution  to  the 
Republic  of  Texas,  as  an  overture  on  the  part  of 
the  United  States  for  admission,  to  negotiate  with 
that  Republic  upon  the  terms  set  forth  in  another 
resolution.  This  was  adopted  by  tbe  Senate  and 
agreed  to  by  the  House,  and  the  whole  beeame  a 
law  on  the  1st  March,  1845. 

Mr.  Buchanan  (who  was  in  a  minority  of  one  in 
the  Committee  of  Foreign  Relations  on  this  subject) 
made  a  very  able  speech  in  their  favor  approving  of 
every  part  of  them,  and  particularly  of  the  Missou 
ri  Compromise  line.  Speaking  of  the  ML-souri 
Compromise  itself,  he  said  emphatically  "who 
could  complain  of  the  Compromise?  It  was  then 
settled  that  north  of  36  deg.  30  min.,  slavery 
should  be  forevex  prohibited.  The  same  line  was 
fixed  Ui<on  in  the  resolutions  recently  received  from 
the  House  of  Representatives  now  before  us.  The 
bill  from  the  House  for  the  establishment  of  a  ter 
ritorial  government  in  Oregon  excluded  slavery 
altogether  from  that  vast  country.  How  vain  were 
the  fears  enUrtained  in  some  quarters  <  f  the  coun 
try  that,  the  sla.ve-holding  States  would  ever  be  able 
to  control  the  Union  !" 

Nut, however^  vain  fear  at  this  day  when  we  read 
tlie  Cincinnati  Platfurm,  of  indefinite  slavery  ex- 
tensior,  rtnd-.ring  all  the  Territories  of  tho  United 
States  slave  territories  by  force  of  its  heretical  dog 
mas,  and  of  course  making  all  future  Stat-s  created 
out  of  them  slave  States  ;  and  when  we  al>o  find 
the  eloquent  and  able  Senator  selected  by  the  Con 
vention  as  the  exponent  of  these  unconstitutional 
doctrines. 

It  was  supposed  by  those  who  were  propitiated 
by  the  3d  section  inserted  in  the  Senate,  giving 
the  option  to  the  President  to  negotiate,  and  whose 
aid  was  necessary  to  carry  the  joint  resolution,  that 
the  choice  of  the  alternatives  would  be  left  to  Pre 
sident  Polk.  Mr.  Caihoun,  however,  determined 
to  clinch  the  nail  before  his  power  expired,  and,  on 
the  3d  of  March,  the  last  day  of  Presid-  nt  Tyler's 
administration,  he  wrote  a  despatch  to  Mr.  Donel- 
son,  instructing  him,  by  the  Pre.-ident's  orders,  to 
prestrt  to  the  government  of  Texas,  as  the  basis 
of  its  admission,  the  proposals  contained  in  the 
resolution  as  it  came  from  the  House  of  Represen 
tatives  :  and,  after  discussing  the  feasibility  of 
amendments  by  Texas,  he  says:  "But  it  is  defined 
by  the  President  of  great  importance  that  the  re 
solution  should  be  adopted  without  amendment." 

President  Tyler,  Mr.  Calhoun  and  all  the.  other 
members  of  the  Cabinet,  including  Mr.  Mason  and 
that  distinguished  jurist,  John  Nelson,  of  Mary 
land,  then  Attorney-General,  approved  and  sanc 
tioned  the  measure  of  applying  the  doctrine  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise  to  the  future  admission  of  a 
State,  to  be  carved  out  of  slave  territory  and  with 
in  whose  limits,  as  an  indispensable  condition, 
"slavery  or  involuntary  servitude  (except  for 
crime)  shall  be  prohibited." 

The  Sth  Section  of  the  Missouri  Act  of  1820  af 
firmed  the  power  of  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery 
in  the  territories  orthe  United  States,  tho  3d  con 
dition  of  the  2d  Section  of  the  Texas  joint  reso- 


11 


the  proposition  distinctly  made  in  it  to  the  Gov 
ernment  of  Texas,  and  then  proceeds:  '•"  President 
Tyler  having  thus  determined  to  adopt  the  two  first 
of  the  series  of  resolutions,  instead  of  the  alterna 
tive  presented  by  the  third,  it  became  the  duty  of 
the  President  to  direct  his  attention  to  this  im 
portant  question  at  as  early  a  moment  as  possible. 
This  has  been  done,  and  his  deliberations  have 
resulted  in  a  clear  and  firm  conviction  that  it  would 
be  inexpedient  to  review  the  decision  of  his  pre 
decessors." 

"The  President  prefers  the  two  first  resolutions, 
because  they  will,  in  his  judgment,  the  most 
speedily  and  certainly  secure  the  admission  of 
Texas  into  the  Union." 

"In  every  aspect  in  which  the  President  has 
viewed  this  subject,  he  believes  that  the  paramount 
question  of  admission  can  be  best  settled,  and  the 
just  rights  of  Texas  can  be  best  secured,  by  her 
acceptance  without  qualification  of  the  terms  and 
condition*  proposed  by  the  first  two  resolutions, 
and  he  therefore  confidently  expects  that  you  will 
exert  your  well  known  ability  and  energy  to  secure 
this  auspicious  result  by  every  honorable  means 
iu  your  power." 

On  the  23d  June,  1845,  the  existing  government 
of  Texas  gave  their  consent  to  all  the  provisions 
of  the  joint  resolutions  of  the  American  Congress 
for  annexing  Texas  to  the  United  States,  and  a 
convention  of  delegates  to  form  a  State  Constitu 
tion,  to  be  held  on  the  4th  July,  1845,  was  also 
sanctioned. 

This  Convention  met  and  passed  an  ordinance, 
on  the  4lh  July,  1845,  giving  the  assent  of  the  peo 
ple  of  Texas  to  the  proposals  conditions  and  gua 
rantees  contained  in  the  first  and  second  sections 
of  the  joint  resolution  of  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States,  as  recited  in  said  ordi 
nance.  This  Convention,  on  the  27th  August, 
adopted  a  Constitution,  by  the  13th  sec 
tion  of  the  schedule  to  which  the  aforesaid  ordi 
nance  of  the  4r.h  July  was  attached,  and  formed  a 
part  of  the  same.  The  people  of  Texas,  at  the 
Dolls,  accepted  the  tewas  of  annexation  aad  rati 
fied  the  Constitution. 

By  a  joint  r*  solution  of  the  29th  December, 
184a,reciting  the  joint  resolutions  of  the  1st  March, 
and  all  the  acts  done  by  the  government  and  peo 
ple  of  Texas  already  stated,  the  State  of  Texas 
was  admitted  into  the  Union. 

President  Polk  carried  out  in  full  the  plan  adopt 
ed  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  be  and  all  his  Cabinet, 
including  Mr.  Buchanan  and  Mr.  Walker,  who  had 
advocated  the  measure  in  the  Senate,  fully  approv 
ed  and  sanctioned  the  Constitutional  power  of  Con 
gress  over  slavery,  so  clearly  asserted  in  the  second 
t-ecti  >u  of  this  celebrated  joint  resolution. 

At  the  close  ot  his  Presidential  career,  President 
Polk,  having  on  the  14th  August,  1848,  approved 
the  Oregon  bill,  AViiich,  in  its  14th  section,  con 
tained  an  extension  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787  to 
that  Territory,  seat  a  message  to  the  House  of  Re 
presentatives,  stating  his  reasons  for  sigv  ing  it,  in 
whieli  ho  distictly  affirmed  the  Constitutionality 
and  expediency  of  the  Texas  and  Missouri  Com 
promise  which  I  have  just  discussed. 

Of  our  acquisitions  from  Mexico: 

California  was  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a  free 
Sta.e.  Territorial  governments  were  formed  for 
New  Mexico  and  Utah,  and  the  Northern  bounda 
ry  cfthe  State  of  Texas  was  settled  with  her  con 
sent.  The  Legislation  of  1850  was  confined  entire- 
Is  to  these  Territories,  and  was  not  in  any  manner 
extended  to  the  Territory  covered  by  the  8th  sec 
tion  of  the  act  of  1820,  nor  did  any  man  dream 
that  it  could  be  until  it  became  necessary  to  find 
an  excuse  for  making  Kansas  a  slave  State. 


lution  of  1845,  distinctly  affirmed  the  power  of 
Congress  to  impose  upon  a  State  taken  from  slave 
territory,  as  a  sine  qu<i  non,  that  slavery  should  be 
prohibited  within  its  boundaries. 

Upon  the  accession  of  President  Polk,  Mr. 
Buchanan,  as  Secretary  of  State,  writes  on  the 
lOtn  of  March  to  Mr.  DoneLsori,  noticing  th«  de 
spatch  of  Mr.  Calhoun  of  the  3d  hist.,  and  stating 

By  the  treaty  witb  Spain  of  1819,  and  the  8th 
Section  of  the  Missouri  Act  of  1820,  r.he  South  got 
three  slave  States — Missouri,  Arkansas  and  Flori 
da—comprising  all  the  then  territory  within  the, 
limits  of  the  United  States  south  of  36  de^-.  30  min. 
with  the  exception  of  the  territory  reserved  for  the 
Indians.  The  benefit  to  the  free  States  and  their 
white  freemen  was  prospective,  and  only  one  free 
State,  Iowa,  has  been  admitted  out  of  the  territory 
devoted  to  Freedom.  The  South  have  obtained 
six  Senators,  Freedom  only  two. 

After  the  accession  of  President  Pierce,  who 
owed  his  nomination  to  Virginia  and  the  slave 
States,  the  South  were  encouraged  to  attempt  a 
destruction  of  the  Compromise  uuder  the  lead  of 
the  Senator  from  Illinois.  It  was,  however,  ap 
proached  cautiously  and  warily,  and  with  many 
backings  and  fillings  on  the  part  of  the  projectors 
and  the  Government  organ. 

New  Mexico  and  California  were  free  by  the  law 
of  nations,  Slavery  being  prohibited  by  the  laws 
and  constitution  of  Mexico,  and  of  course  would 
remain  so  until  altered  by  an  act  of  Congress. 
This  was  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Clay  and  all  the  emi 
nent  men  in  1850. 

Small  men  carped  at  the  docrine,  and  the  acts 
for  the  Territorial  governments  of  Utah  and  New 
Mexico  did  not  decide  it. 

The  Missouri  Compromise  was  fixed  by  an  act 
of  Congress,  which  must  stand  until  repealed]  for 
it  was  a  clear  absurdity  to  call  it  unconstitutional. 
The  Committee  on  Territories,  however  willing  to 
escape  from  the  odium  of  direct  repeal,  thought 
there  was  a  resemblance  between  the  two  cases, 
and  they  accordingly  said  in  their  report  to  the 
Senate  on  the  4th  January,  1854,  "your  committee 
are  not  prepared  to  recommend  a  departure  from 
the  course  pursued  on  that  memorable  occasion, 
either  by  affirming  or  repealing  the  8th  section  of 
the  Missouri  Act,  or  by  any  act  declaratory  of  the 
meaning  of  the  Constitution  in  respect  to  the  le 
gal  points  in  dispute." 

The  Committee  were,  however,  by  the  outside 
pressure,  and  the  manly  declaration  of  Mr.  Dixon, 
of  Kentucky,  that  he  would  move  a  direct  repeal, 
forced  at  last  into  an  indirect  nullification  of  the 
8tu  section,  as  it  appears  in  the  32d  section  of  the 
act  to  organize  the  Territories  of  Nebraska  a.nd 
Kansas.  Mark  the  words: 

"That  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the 
United  States,  which  are  not  locally  inappli 
cable,  shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect 
within  the  said  Territory  of  Kansas  as 
elsuwtiere  within  the  United  States,  ex 
cept  the  8th  section  of  the  act  preparatory  to 
the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union,  ap 
proved  March  6th,  1820,  which  being  inconsistent 
with  the  principle  of  non-intervention  by  Con 
gress  with  slavery  in  the  States  and  Territories  as 
recognized  bv  the  legislation  of  1850,  commonly 
called  the  Compromise  measures,  is  hereby  de 
clared  inoperative  and  void,  it  being  thj  true 
intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  t«i  lo^islare 
slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude 
it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the-  people  thereof  per 
fectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  thinr  domestic  in 
stitutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Provided,  that 
nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to  re- 


12 


vive  or  put  in  force  any  law  or  regulation  which 
may  have  existed  prior  to  the  act  of  6th  of  March, 
1820,  either  protecting,  establishing  prohibiting  or 
abolishing  slavery." 

^.It  is  perfectly  clear  from  this  clause  1.  That  the 
Compromise  measures  of  I860  did  not  touch  or 
in  any  manner  reach  the  Territory  covered  by  the 
prohibition  in  the  8  h  section  of  the  act  of  the  6th 
March,  1820.  2.  That  the  Compromise  of  1850 
related  to  new  acquisitions,  whilst  the  Compromise 
of  1820  related  exclusively  to  territory  then  owned 
by  tne  United  States,  and  the  subject  of  division 
at  the  time  into  slave  andfree  Territory  by  mu 
tual  agreement. 

o.  That  the  reason  assigned  for  declaring  the 
8th  suction  inoperative  and  void  is  not  founded  in 
fact,  tor  no  sane  man  in  1850  dreamed  of  affecting 
the  Compromise  of  1820,  which  stood  on  its  own 
merits,  and  applied  to  entirely  different  territory, 
differently  circumstanced,  and  on  the  fai  h  of 
which  Compromise  the  three  slave  States  of  Mis 
souri,  Arkansas  and  Florida  had  been  admitted 
inio  the  Union. 

4.  That  the  disclaimer  of  legislation  looks  ex 
ceedingly  as  if  Congress  thought  they  possessed 
the  power  to  deal  with   slavery  in  the  Territory, 
particularly   when    they   give    authority    to    the 
people  to  act  upon  it.     If  the  people  of  the  Teai- 
tory  derive  their  power  from  the  section  to  admit 
or  exc'ude  slavery,  then  Congress,  who  vt-st  them 
with  it,  must  undoubtedly  have  the  same  power, 
and   can  prohibit  slavery  whenever  such  is  their 
pleasure. 

5.  That  the  8th  section  of  the  act  of  1820,  like 
the  6th  article  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  and  the 
last  clause  in  the  3d  condition  of  the  2d  section  of 
the    joint   resolution    for   annexing  Texas  to  the 
United  States,  is  constitutional. 

From  the  review  of  the  Constitution,  and  Terri 
torial  le^i.-lation  of  the  United  States,  it  is  abun 
dantly  certain  that  the  Gth  article  of  the  Ordinance 
of  1787,  and  the  Missouri  and  Texas  Compromises, 
which  were  but  extensions  of  it,  were  clearly  Con 
stitutional  measures,  and  intended  to  work  out  the 
greatest  good  for  the  greatest  number. 

From  the  earlier  provisions  have  sprung  the  six 
great  free  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michi 
gan,  Wisconsin  and  Iowa,  which  number  no  doubt 
at  this  hour  as  many  white  free  inhabitants  as  the 
whole  fifteen  slave  States  put  together. 

I  should  not  have  pursued  the  argument  to  this 
extent,  if  the  Cincinnati  Convention,  in  their  plat 
form,  had  not  expressly  declared  that  Congress  had 
no  power  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  thw  Territo 
ries,  or  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  I  think  I 
hay^e  shewn  conclusively  that  they  have  the  power 
over  slavery  in  the  Territories,  and  have  exercised 
it  Irom  the  commencement  of  the  government,  and 
this  is  the  real  inane  in  this  cavipuiyn.  The  power 
over  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  I  have 
never  heard  doubted  by  any  sound  jurist  or 
statesman,  and  it  is  obvious  to  any  one  who  will 
read  the  plain  words  of  the  Constitution.  The 
Congress  shall  have  power  "  to  exercise  exclusive 
legislation  in  all  cases  whatsoever,  over  such  Dis 
trict;"  and  singular  as  it  may  appear  to  the  mem 
bers  of  the  Cincinnati  Convention,  one  of  the  ce 
lebrated  compromise  measures  of  1850,  was  '•'  an 
act  to  suppress  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,"  which  under  this  new  reading  of  the 
Constitution,  should  be  instantly  repealed.  The 
expediency  of  further  interference  has  been  doubt 
ed  by  very  able  men,  and  as  it  is  not  one  of  the 
issues  at  the  ensuing  election,  I  dismiss  it  with 
these  few  observation?-. 

Both  of  these  planks  in  the  platform  are  rotten, 
and  the  candidate  who  stands  upon  them,  must 


fall  to  the  ground. 

I  can  say,  therefore,  with  perfect  freedom  and 
entire  truth,  that  this  actual  repeal  of  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise  by  the  Nebraska-Kansas  Act, 
was  a  breach  of  national  faith  and  violation  of  na 
tional  honor,  which  was  rebuked  by  the  people  in 
1854,  and  will  be  still  more  severely  punished  in 
1856,  when  the  crimes  against  Kansas  and  its  un 
offending  free  citizens  have  been  made  known  to 
the  whole  civilized  world  in  the  most  authent:c 
form. 

KANSAS. 

The  apparent  plan  of  the  Kansas  Bill  was  to  leave 
the  people  of  the  Territory  perfectly  free  to  form  and 
regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  thtir  own 
way. 

This  clearly  meant  that  this  was  not  to  be  done 
by  the  people  of  Missouri,  but  by  those  who  made 
the  territory  their  home  and  not  a  mere  place  of 
transit  or  temporary  sojourn.  There  was  another 
difficulty,  under  the  Constitution  the  slaveholder 
claims  a  right  to  enter  any  territory  with  his  slaves 
and  assumes  as  a  principlo  that  all  the  territory  of 
the  United  States  is  slave  territory  and  that  no 
territorial  legislature  can  exclude  him  and  his 
human  chattels.  The  territory  under  this  construc 
tion  necessarily  becomes  slave  territory,  and 
therefore  the  other  provision  of  the  Kansas  Bill 
that  when  admitted  as  a  State  it  shall  be  received 
into  the  Union  with  or  without  slavery  as  the  Con 
stitution  may  prescribe,  is  a  mere  nullity  and  an 
absolute  farce,  as  a  slave  territory  must  always  be 
come  a  slave  State. 

Into  these  difficulties  has  the  criminal  violation 
of  a  solemn  compromise  led  the  apparent  friends 
but  real  enemies  of  popular  sovereignty,  and  the 
practice  under  the  organic  laws  of  Kansas,  is  the 
best  proof  of  the  soundness  of  the  Constitutional 
doctrine  of  the  supreme  and  exclusive  power  of 
Congress  over  the  territories  in  their  territorial 
form. 

Who  can  protect  an  infant  Territory  and  its  citi 
zens  against  the  invasion  of  the  hordes  of  ankad- 
joining  State  but  Congress?  The  Territory,  spars. :ly 
settled  cannot  resist  a  foreign  invasion,  and  a  popu 
lous  State  can  easily  conquer  and  subdue  its  few  in 
habitants. 

Under  such  theories  and  practice  every  new  Terri 
tory  must  belong  to  the  next  Stitc  and  become  its 
prey,  and,  instead  of  all  the  citizens  of  the  thirty- 
one  States  having  any  lot  or  part  in  it,  it  must  be 
come  the  property  of  the  one  State  which  cuts  it 
off  from  all  communication  with  any  others. 

Now  this  has  been  exactly  the  case  of  Kansas. 
The  access  to  her  is  through  the  State  of  Missouri 
and  by  the  Missouri  river.  No  free  State  man 
could  travel  with  his  family  by  land  or  water  with 
out  being  stopped,  robbed  of  his  property,  his  arms 
(if  he  had  any)  taken  from  him  and  confiscated  to  the 
use  of  his  plunderers  ;  and,  if  not  tarred  and  lea 
thered  or  shot  and  scalped,  turned  back  and  direct 
ed  to  leave  the  State  and  not  to  attempt  to  enter 
Kansas.  In  and  out  of  Kansas  unoffending  men, 
Methodist  ministers,  members  of  the  Society  of 
Friends,  merchants,  tradesmen,  mechanics  and  far 
mers,  with  their  wives  and  families,  have  been  ex 
posed  to  all  kinds  of  ill  treatment  because  they 
preferred  freedom  to  slavery  and  wished  Kansas 
to  bo  a  free  Territory  and  a  free  State.  Fur  all 
these  outrages  and  murders  not.  one  single  indivi 
dual  has  had  any  redress,  nor  has  one  single  guilty 
person  ever  been  punished. 

It  would  be  a  dangerous  matter  for  any  one  to 
complain  of  such  acts  to  any  tribunal  or  officer, 
eitiier  in  Kansas  or  Missouri.  This  is  no  exag 
gerated  picture,  but  is  far  below  the  truth,  'ihe 


13 


policy  of  the  Border  Ruffian  party  has  been  to 
prevent  all  free  white  citizens,  who  were  not  de 
voted  to  slavery,  Iroui  entering  Kansas  by  any 
route,  and  if  they  reached  the  Territory  to  drive 
tbem  out  by  threats  of  violence,  or  the  applica 
tion  of  a  direct  force,  in  its  most  dangerous  form. 

I  have  examined  with  care  the  report  of  the 
Committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  ap 
pointed  to  investigate  the  troubles  in  Kansas,  and 
fully  agree  with  them  in  the  fjicts  and  conclusions 
which  they  regard  as  established  by  the  testimony. 
They  are  to  be  found  at  page  67  of  the  Report 
No.  200,  34  Congress.  1  session  House  of  Repre 
sentatives.  Amongst  them  are:  "First,  that  each 
election  in  the  Territory,  held  under  the  organic 
or  alleged  territorial  law,  has  been  carried  by  or 
ganized  invasion  from  the  State  of  Missouri,  by 
which  the  people  of  the  Territory  have  been  pre 
vented  frum  exercising  the  rights  secured  to  them 
by  the  organic  law." 

"  Second,  That  the  alleged  territorial  legislature 
was  an  illegally  constituted  body,  and  had  no 
power  to  p>ss  valid  laws,  and  their  enactments  are 
tin  rolore  null  and  void." 

"  Third.  That  these  alleged  laws  have  not  been, 
as  a  general  thing,  used  to  protect  persons  and 
property  and  to  punish  wrong,  but  for  unlawful 
purposes." 

Ttie  election  for  members  of  the  Territorial  Le 
gislature  was  held  on  the  30th  March,  1855,  audit 
is  proved  by  incontestible  evidence  that  by  <m  or 
ganized  movement  which  extended  over  a  large 
portion  of  the  border  counties  of  Missouri,  com 
panies  of  men  were  arranged  and  sent  into  every 
council  district  in  the  Territory,  and  intoeverjt  Re 
presentative  district  but  one,  and  the  numbers 
were  so  distribute »  as  to  control  the  election  in 
each  district.  They  went  to  vote  and  with  the 
avowed  design  to  make  Kansas  a  slave  State,  and 
were  generally  armed  and  equipped  and  carried 
\vitu  them  their  own  provisions.  They  succeeded 
by  force,  fraud,  imimidatioa  and  violence,  and  re 
turned  pro-slavery  members  of  the  Territorial  Le 
gislature,  elected  by  the  citizens  of  the  S'ate  of 
Alis.-ouri,  who,  to  the  number  of  nearly  5,000,  had 
voted  in  the  several  election  districts. 

It  was,  in  fact,  a  Missouri,  not  a  Kansas  elec 
tion,  and  the  Legislature  was  a  Missouri,  and  not 
a  Kantas  one. 

A  parallel  to  such  an  outrage  eould  only  be 
found  in  supposing  that  we  should  send  20,- 
OCO  armed  men  into  the  State  of  Delaware 
who  should  take  possession  of  the  polls,  elect  a 
Governor,  a  Legislature,  and  all  the  State  and 
county  officers,  and  then  ask  the  people  to  submit 
to  cruel  and  infamous  laws  passed  by  this  spurious 
legislative  body,  and  the  whole  should  be  recog 
nised  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  as  the 
regular  government  of  Delaware,  and  all  opposi 
tion  to  it  put  down  by  the  army  of  the  United 
States. 

These  pretended  laws  of  Kansas  are,  for  the 
most  part,  transcripts  of  the  Missouri  laws,  from 
the  Digest  of  1845,  and  form  additional  evidence 
of  its  being  solely  a  Missouri  legislature. 

These  laws  assume  that  slavery  exists  in  Kansas. 
There  is  no  act  establishing  slavery,  or  declaring 
human  beings  to  be  property,  but,  all  the  enact 
ments  proceed  upon  the  principle  that,  by  the  Ne 
braska-Kansas  act  and  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  this  is  one  of  the  original  domestic 
institutions  of  the  Territory.  According  to  this 
doctrine  it  was  slave  territory  before  any  Legisla 
ture  was  elected,  or  any  Governor  or  Judges  were 
appointed. 

Thus,  in  the  first  section  of  tho  act  (ch.  131) 
to  punish  offences  against  slave  property,  it  was 


enncted  "That  every  person,  bond  or  free,  who 
shall  be  convicted  of  actually  raising  a  rebellion 
or  insurrection  of  slaves,  free  negroes,  or  mulat- 
toes  in  this  Territory,  shall  suffer  death;"  which 
means  that  the  citizen  who  believes  this  to  be  a 
free  Territory  is  to  be  hung. 

"  Sect.  12.  If  any  free  person,  by  speaking  or 
by  Avritin<r,  as-ert  or  maintain  that  persons  have 
not  the  right  to  hold  slaves  in  this  Territory,  or 
shall  introduce  into  this  Territory,  print  or  pub 
lish,  write,  eirculate,  or  cause  to  be  introduced 
into  this  Territory  any  book,  paper,  magazine, 
pamphlet  or  circular  containing  any  denial  of  the 
right  of  persons  to  hold  slaves  in  this  Territory, 
such  persons  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  felony,  and 
punched  by  imprisonment  at  hard  labor  for  a 
term  of  not  less  than  two  years." 

This  is  clearly  on  a  par  with  Mr.  Sherwood  in 
Texas  being  prohibited  by  a  public  meeting  from 
addressing  his  constituents  in  defence  of  his  course 
in  the  Legislature,  unless  he  omitted  all  allusions 
to  slavery,  his  offence  being  that  he  had  asserted 
the  power  of  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the 
Territories,  in  other  words,  to  pa*s  the  Missouri 
Compromise  Act ;  or  with  Mr.  Underwood,  being 
exiled  from  his  home  in  Virginia  because  he  was 
a  member  of  the  Republican  Convention  in  this 
city;  or  with  the  two  honest  Irishmen,  Malone 
and  Colwell,  being  sent  away  from  South  Caro 
lina  and  advertised  like  runaway  slaves,  or  crimi 
nals  escaped  from  the  penitentiary,  because  one  of 
them  said  he  was  in  favor  of  Free  Kansas  ;  with 
the  expulsion  ef  the  booksellers  from  Mobile,  and 
the  outrages  upon  free  speech  at  Wheeling  and 
Baltimore  ;  and  the  still  greater  outrage  upon  the 
freedom  of  debate  by  the  brutal  attack  upon  Mr. 
Sumn^r,  which  has  disgraced  the  country  in  the 
eyts  of  the  whole  civilized  world. 

But  thero  is  still  another  section,  under  which 
any  conscientious  free  State  man,  who  eveu  hands 
to  his  neighbour  this  speech  or  any  other  harangue 
delivered  in  the  free  States  upon  the  coming  elec 
tions,  may  be  visited  with  a  much  severer  punish 
ment,  for  it  is  only  pro-slavery  juries  and  judges 
who  can  try  him  by  the  laws  of  Kansas. 

"  Sect.  11.  if  any  person  print,  write,  introduce 
into,  publish,  or  circulate,  or  cause  to  be  brought 
into,  printed,  written,  published  or  circulated,  or 
shall  knowingly  aid  or  assist  in  bringing  into, 
printing,  publishing,  or  circulating  within  this 
Territory  any  book,  paper,  pamphlet,  magazine, 
hand-bill,  or  circular,  containing  any  statements, 
arguments,  opinions,  sentiments,  doctrine,  advice 
or  inuendo,  calculated  to  produce  a  disorderly, 
dangerous  or  rebellious  disaffection  among  the 
slaves  in  this  Territory,  or  to  induce  slaves  to  es 
cape  from  the  service  of  their  masters  or  to  resist 
their  authority,  he  shall  be  guilty  of  felony  and  be 
punished  by  imprisonment  at  hard  labour  for  a 
term  of  not  less  than  five  years." 

From  these  enactments  it  is  certain  that  a  speech 
in  favor  of  Fremont  in  Kansas  would  place  the 
speaker  in  the  penitentiary,  or  rather  condemn  him 
to  the  ball  and  chain. 

Under  such  laws  no  man  cculd  advocate  any 
candidate  upon  the  ground  either  that  he  was  op 
posed  to  slavery  in  Kansas  and  would  so  vote  in 
the  Legislature,  or  if  in  a  convention  to  form  a 
State  government,  would  vote  for  the  prohibition  of 
slavery  jn  the  constitution.  These  laws,  in  fact, 
nullify  all  the  provisions  of  the  organic  law. 

The  provisions  as  to  Attorneys-at-Law,  Jurors 
and  voters  are  all  intended,  by  prescribing  oaths 
which  cannot  be  taken  by  free  State  men,  to  throw 
the  whole  power  of  the  legLlative  and  judicial 
branches  of  Government  into  the  bands  of  pro- 
slavery  men  of  the  Border-ruffian  stamp,  which, 


14 


with  the  appointments  by  the  executive  at  Wash 
ington,  givo  the  whole  power  in  Kansas  to  the 
Missouri  invaders. 

No  matter,  therefore,  what  may  be  the  majority 
of  free  State  men  iu  Kansas,  under  such  laws 
they  are  powerless. 

'Ihtie  is  every  reason,  therefore,  that  being  null 
and  void,  these  laws  should  be  nullified  forever  by 
a  change  in  the  administration  at  Washington, 
which  can  be  done  by  an  united  effort  of  the  friends 
of  freedom  in  Pennsylvania  in  favor  of  Fremont 
and  Dayton. 

These  crimes  in  Kansas  and  Missouri,  the  acts 
of  fraud  and  violence  committed  by  the  iJor- 
der  Ruffians  in  both,  the  acts  I  have  already 
enumerated,  and  not  the  least  the  killing  of 
the  'nnocent  and  unoffending  Keating,  not 
one  of  which  crimes  have  ever  been,  or  ever 
will  be,  punished,  by  the  authorities  iu  the  slave 
States,  ciinonly  be  accounted  for  by  the  deliberate 
opinion  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  of  the  dreadful  effect 
Oi  slavery  upon  the  masters  :  "  There  must  doubt 
less,  be,"  said  this  eminent  patriot,  "  an  unhappy 
influence  on  the  manners  of  our  people,  produced 
by  the  existence  of  s-bivery  among  us.  The  whole 
commerce  between  master  and  slav>  is  a  perpetual 
exercise  of  the  most  boisterous  passions,  the  most 
unremitting  despotism  on  the  one  part,  and  de 
grading  submission  on  the  other.  Our  children 
see  this  and  learn  to  imitate  it;  for  man  is  an  imi 
tative  animal.  This  quality  is  the  germ  of  all 
education  in  him.  From  bis  cradle  to  his  grave 
he  is  learning  to  do  what  he  sees  others  do. 
If  a  parent  could  find  no  motive  either  in  his 
philanthropy  or  his  self-love,  for  restraining 
the  intemperance  of  passion  towards  bis  slave,  it 
should  always  be  a  sufficient  one  that  hi.--  child 
is  present.  But  generally  it  is  not  sufficient. 
The  parent  storms,  the  child  looks  on,  catches 
the  lineament*  of  wrath,  puts  oa  the  same  airs  in 
the  circle  of  Mnailer  slavtv,  »y-j>e«  a  loose  to  his 
worst  of  passions,  and  thus  nursed,  educated  and 
daily  exercised  in  tyranny,  cannot  but  be  stamped 
by  it  with  odious  peculiarities.  The  man  must  be 
a  prodigy  who  can  retain  his  manners  and  mo 
rals  undepruved  by  such  circumstances,  and  with 
what  execration  should  the  utateisman  be  loaded  who, 
permitting  one  half  of  the  citizens  thus  to  trample  on 
theri'ihts  of  the  other,  transforms  those  int<»  despots 
and  these  into  enemies,  destroys  the  morals  of  the  one 
part  and  the  amor  patriot}  of  the  other  !" 

Aitt-r  perusing  this  painful  picture  by  the  au 
thor  of  the  immortal  Declaration  of  Independence, 
what  true-hearted  son  of  Pennsylvania  can  refuse 
to  vote  for  free  Kansas. 

The  judicial  department  in  Kansas  appears  to 
be  on  a  level  with  the  Legislature,  if  the  accounts 
of  the  charges  and  decisions  of  the  Judge  be  cor 
rect.  It  was  supposed  that  the  Treason  Trials  at 
Philadelphia  had  disposed  of  the  whole  doctrine 
of  constructive  treason,  by  showing  that  the  Eng 
lish  decisions  in  Messenger  and  Damaree  and  Pur 
chase's  cases  were  not  regarded  as  good  law,  even 
in  England,  the  first  being  the  miserable  opinion 
of  one  of  the  most  contemptible  judges  that  ever 
disgraced  the  bench  of  a  court  of  justice,  and  the 
other  being  founded  upon  it. 

It  appears,  however,  that  the  Chief  Justice  of 
Kansas  believes  in  constructive  treason,  and  that 
it  eonsii-ts,  in  his  opinion,  in  an  opposition  to  the 
Territorial  laws,  which,  being  passed  under  the 
authority  of  the  Nebraska-Kansas  Act  by  the  Ter 
ritorial  Legislature,  he  says  become  laws  of  the 
United  Stales,  and,  therefore,  it  is  treason  against 
the  United  States! 

This  is  upon  a  par  with  the  Grand  Jury  of  his 
Court  finding  a  printing  press  and  hotel,  in  Law 


rence,  nuisances,  and  their  abatement  in  conse 
quence  of  these  findings,  by  the  officers  of  justice, 
at  the  head  of  a  body  of  armed  ruffians,  cannon 
ading  and  burning  the  one,  and  destroying  the 
other. 

If  General  Jackson  had  been  President  instead 
of  Gem  ral  Pierce,  not  one  of  these  crimes  against 
Kansas  would  have  been  committed,  the  Missouri 
Compromise  would  never  have  been  repealed,  the 
Border  Ruffians  nevtr  would  have  invaded  and 
taken  military  possession  of  the  Territory,  nor 
would  the  access  by  the  great  highway  of  the  Mis- 
souri  have  been  closed  against  the  free  citizens 
of  the  free  States  for  a  single  hour.  Every  man 
who  hears  me  knows  and  feels  this  to  be  true. 
His  name  alone  would  have  awed  the  fiercest 
spirits  into  submission  to  the  majesty  of  the  law. 

CUBA    AND    THE    OSTEND    MANIFESTO. 

I  spent  some  weeks  in  Cuba,  this  spring,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  health  of  a  near  relative,  who  re 
quired  the  change  t<>  a  milder  climate.  Our  party, 
none  of  whom  spoke  the  Spanish  language,  after 
staying  some  days  in  the  picturesque  city  of  Ha 
vana,  crossed  to  the  south  side,  and  remained  for 
some  time  on  one  of  the  finest  sugar  plantations 
in  the  island,  belonging  to  a  friend.  During  our 
whole  visit  we  found  the  authorities  of  the  island 
very  friendly,  and  particularly  attentive  to  Ame 
ricans,  whilst  we  were  received  and  treated  by  all 
the  inhabitants  we  saw  in  the  course  of  our  travels, 
with  a  politeness,  kindness,  and  courtesy  peculiar 
to  the  Spanish  nation. 

I  am  unable,  therefore,  to  appreeiate  the  mo 
rality  or  justice  of  taking  Cuba  by  force  if  Spnin 
will  not  sell  it,  and  to  look  with  coolness  on  the 
devastation  and  ruin  which  must  await  this  delight 
ful  island  and  its  inhabitants  if  invaded  by  the 
army  and  navy  of  the  United  States. 

It  was  to  be  hoped  That  the  celebrated  Ostend 
manifesto  would  have  sunk  into  oblivion:  but  as  it 
has  been  made  one  of  the  planks  of  the  Cincinnati 
platform,  by  language  which  will  be  interpreted  to 
suit  the  occasion,  it  is  but  proper  and  right  to  ex 
press  our  disapprobation  of  the  doctrines  and  prin 
ciples  contained  in  it. 

The  almost  fabulous  sum  which  has  been  offered 
for  the  Island  could  be  much  better  applied  to  the 
construction  of  tbe  great  railroad  to  the  Pacific, 
which  will  be  carried  through  Kansas  if  free,  and 
which  will  give  us  a  certain  and  swift  line  of  com 
munication  within  our  own  Territories  between  the 
two  oceans  without  embroiling  ourselves  with  fo 
reign  nations. 

FREE    LABOR. 

I  should  not  have  said  another  word  on  the  evils 
of  slavery  except  for  the  constant  and  unremitting 
attacks  of  Southern  politicians  and  of  the  Southern 
press  supporting  the  Cincinnati  platform  and  its 
nominees,  upon  the  free  white  citizens  of  the  North, 
with  their  wives  and  families,  who  lire  by  the 
honest  labor  of  their  own  hands. 

Slavery  is  declared  to  be  a  patriarchal  institution 
necessary  for  the  advancement  of  the  human  race, 
and  that  it  includes  from  necessity  both  whites  and 
blacks.  "The  South  maintains  that  slavery  is 
riyht,  natural  and  necessary,  and  does  not  depend 
upon  difference  of  complexion.  The  laws  of  the 
slave  States  justify  the  holding  of  white  men  in 
bondage." — Richmond  Enquirer. 

"  Slavery  is  the  natural  and  normal  condition  of 
the  laboring  man,  whethtr  white  or  black.  The 
great  evil  of  Northern  society  is  that  it  is  bur- 
thened  with  a  servile  class  of  mechanics  and  la- 


15 


borers,  unfit  for  self-government,  and  yet  clothed 
with  the  attributes  and  powers  of  citizens." 

"We  have  got  to  hating  everything  with  the 
prefix  free,  from  free  negroes  down  and  through 
the  whole  catalogue,  free  farms,  free  labor,  free 
society,  free  will,  free  thinking,  free  children  and 
free  schools,  all  belonging  to  the  same  brood  of 
damnable  isms." — (South  Side  Democrat.) 

"Free  Society  !  we  sicken  of  the  name — what  is 
it  but  a  conglomeration  of  greasy  mechanics, 
filthy  operatives,  small  fisted  farmers,  and  moon 
struck  theorists." — (Muscoyee  Herald.) 

These  nre  true  extracts  from  the  Southern  papers 
all  advocating  the  Cincinnati  platform,  and  ex 
hibiting  the  real  views  of  the  Southern  apostles 
who  are  wandering  hrough  our  State  to  teach  the 
people  of  Pennsylvania  to  prefer  slavery  to  free 
dom,  to  prefer  being  "owned"  instead  of  being 
hired. 

In  the  Southern  States  there  are  upwards  of 
three  millions  of  people  without  the  divine  institu 
tion  of  marriage,  who  have  neither  wives,  husbands, 
nor  children,  except  as  the  ftal  follows  the  mare. 
All,  from  infancy  to  old  age.  without  distinction  of 
sex,  or  even  of  color  (for  the  shades  are  from  black 
to  white,)  are  liable  to  whipping — cruel  and  im 
moderate  whipping— in  private  by  their  masters, 
provided  it  does  nor  affect  life  or  limb.  The  infant 
may  be  separated  from  its  mother,  and  be  sold  into 
distant  slavery,  at  the  will  or  caprice  of  the  master, 
or  hy  the  iron  hand  of  the  law.  Three  millions  of 
souls  in  a  Chii.-tian  land,  whether  slave  or  free,  are 
forbidden  to  learn  to  read  or  write,  and  of  course 
forbidden  to  read  the  Bible;  whilst  free  white  wo 
men  are  punished  with  -fine  and  imprisonment  for 
doing  what,  on  the  const  ot  Africa,  would  be  con 
sidered  tiie  chief  end  of  mit>siouar.v  labor.  The  vices 
and  degradation  of  slavery  need  no  enumeration; 
and  their  effect  on  the  white  races  has  been 
graphically  portrayed  by  Col.  Mason,  of  Virginia. 
"Christians,"  fays  a  Southern  Judve,  "how  can 
we  justify  it  that  a  sluve  is  not  to  be  allowed  to 
read  the  Bible?" 

In  the  South,  no  large  cities  call  for  free  white 
mechanical  or  other  labor,  ami  the  interior  is  vir 
tually  closed  to  ah  free  white  labour  by  the  weal 
thy  slave  owner,  who  employs  only  his  white  over 
seers  and  his  black  slaves,  whether  in  the  labor  of 
the  field,  the  house,  the  shop  and  even  in  the  ma 
nufactory. 

lu  a  Southern  State  all  free  white  male,  (and 
in  some  places  female;  inhabitants  are  liable  to  do 
patroi  duty,  that  is  to  watch  over  the  slaves  of  their 
rich  neighbors,  and  they  are  called  out  at  least 
once  a  fortnight,  and  may  correct  with  stripes,  all 
slaves  infringing  the  slave  regulations  in  the 
slightest  particular. 

Does  any  free  white  man,  with  his  family  and 
their  labor,  think  of  going  to  South  Carolina,  the 
head  quarters  of  Southern  slavery?  If  this  be  so, 
why  should  such  a  system  be  tolerated  for  a  mo 
ment  in  territory  now  free,  and  thus  exclude  the 
native  Pennsylvanian,  or  the  hardy  emigrant  from 
Europe  tor  sett  ling  in  the  far  West.  The  intro 
duction  of  slavery  is  tbe  permanent  exclusion 
of  the  white  freemen  and  free  white  labor. 

I  have  not  thought  it  worth  while  to  paint  the 
true  state  of  society  in  the  North,  with  its  mani 
fold  blessings,  for  they  are  known  and  felt  by  all 
of  us.  So  great  are  our  improvements  that  I  was 
assured  by  a  gentleman  intimately  acquainted 
with  both  the  North  and  the  South,  that  the  re 
spectable  mechanics  of  Philadelphia  had  better 
accommodations,  and  enjoyed  in  fact  more  real 
comforts  than  the  Georgia  planter  did  on  his  plan 
tation. 


PENNSYLVANIA 

UPON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  SLAVERY.  FROM  TIIE  ACT  OF  1780  TO 
LHE  PRESENT  TIME.  THE  LEGISLATIVE  Of  PENNSYLVANIA 
IN  FAVOR  OP  FREEDOM 

In  the  year  1819,  Mr.  Buchanan  was  one  of  a 
committee  who  reported  resolutions  to  a  meeting, 
held  at  Lancaster,  requesting  their  Representatives 
in  Congress  to  use  their  utmost  endeavors  to  pre 
vent  the  existence  of  slavery  in  any  of  the  Terri 
tories  or  States  which  may  be  erected  by  Congress. 
In  the  same  year  were  passed  unanimously  by  trie 
Legislature,  the  celebrated  preamble  and  resolu 
tions,  offered  by  Mr.  W.  J.  Duane,  against  the  ad 
mission  of  Missouri  as  a  slave  State.  It  was 
signed  by  Governor  Findlay,  and  it  spoke  the  sen 
timents  of  the  whole  State. 

On  the  23d  January,  1829,  a  resolution  was 
passed  unanimout-ly  in  the  Senate,  and  by  a  vote 
of  81  to  8  in  the  House,  "That  the  Senators  of  this 
State,  in  the  Senate  of  tbe  United  States,  be  and 
they  are  hereby  instructed,  and  the  Representa 
tives  of  this  State  in  Congress  be  and  they  are 
hereby  requested  to  procure,  if  practicable,  the 
passage  of  a  law  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District 
of  Columbia,  in  such  a  manner  as  they  may  con 
sider  consistent  with  the  rights  of  individuals  and 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  Spates." 

It  was  signed  by  the  pre  ent  Treaj-urer  of  the 
Mint,  as  Speaker  of  the  Seriate,  and  approved  by 
Governor  Shulze,  and  it  was  voted  for  in  the  Senate 
and  the  House  by  two  gentlemen  who  were  after 
wards  members  of  Governor  Shunk's  Cabinet. 

On  the  22d  January,  1S47,  a  resolution,  offered 
by  a  Democratic  member,  passed  the  House  unani 
mously  and  the  Senate  wittj  only  three  dissentients, 
requesting  our  Senators  and  Representatives  to 
vote  against  any  measure  by  which  Territories 
may  accrue  to  the  Union,  unless,  as  part  of  the 
fundamental  law  upon  which  any  compact  or  trea 
ty  for  this  purpose  is  based,  slavery  or  involunta 
ry  servitude,  except  for  crime,  shall  bo  forever 
prohibited.  This  met  the  approbatioH  of  Gover 
nor  St'unk. 

On  the  3d  of  March,  1847,  an  A"t  was  passed 
and  approved  by  Governor  Shunk,  abolisiriug  the 
last  remnant  of  slavery  within  our  own  limits  so 
that  every  man,  except  a  fugitive  from  labor,  upon 
touching  the  soil  of  Pennsylvania  became  a  tree 
man. 

Mr.  Buchanan  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Democratic 
citizens  of  Reading,  at  their  celebration  on  the 
4th  of  July,  1847,  recommending  the  Missouri 
Compromise  Line. 

On  the  4th  of  July,  1849,  a  resolution  was  passed 
unanimously  ai  the  Democratic  State  Convention, 
held  at  Pittsburgh,  against  the  extension  of  slave 
ry  to  the  Territories,  and  it-<  nominee  for  Canal 
Commissioner,  Mr.  Gamble,  wrote  a  letter  recog 
nizing,  in  the  strongest  terms,  the  power  of  Con 
gress  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territories,  and 
the  propriety  ot  doing  so.  Mr.  Gamble  was  elect 
ed  by  a  large  majority. 

THE    PLATFORMS. 

Of  late  years  the  South  have  adopted  the  policy 
of  nominating  Northern  men  with  Southern  prin 
ciples,  and  to  them  has  virtually  been  jjiven  the 
privilege  of  selecting  the  candidate,  at.d  announc 
ing  ibe  principles  upon  whicn  his  admini.-trution 
is  to  be  conducted. 

Thus,  though  in  a  decided  minority,  by  always 
acting  as  an  unit,  d  force,  they  have  secured  to 
themselves  the  whole  power  of  shaping  the  policy 
of  tbe  government. 

Ibe  South  it>elf,  against  its  will,  is  governed  by 
a  small  body  of  slaveholders,  who,  founding  their 


16 


power  upon  their  ownership  of  human  beings,  are 
constantly  engaged  in  plans  to  enl.-irge  the  area  of 
slavery  so  as  to  afford  a  larger  innrkec  for  thuir  hu 
man  chattels.  The  effect  of  this  is  to  place  the 
government  in  the  possession  of  a  privileged  class, 
a  sort  of  slave  nobility,  and  the  President  becomes 
a  puppet  in  the  bands  of  irresponsible  and  inte 
rested  advisers,  who  force  him  into  measures 
which  his  better  nature  would  shrink  from. 

As  their  policy  has  prospered  so  has  their  au 
dacity  increased,  until  at  last,  at  Cincinnati,  it  is 
developed  in  a  form  which  will  leave  little  more  to 
be  done  in  favor  of  slavery  by  the  next  Conven 
tion,  which  meets  at  Charleston,  the  hot-bed  of 
Southern  slave  fanaticism. 

The  Cincinnati  Platform,  in  plain  words,  nega 
tives  all  power  in  Congress  over  slavery  in  the 
Territories,  and,  as  a  corollary,  refuses  it  to  the 
people  of  the  Territory,  who  cannot  have  what 
Congress  has  net,  and  which,  of  course,  it  cannot 
delegate  to  another.  The  result  is  the  adoption 
of  the  new-fjngled  Southern  theory,  spun  out  of 
brains  of  men  who  profess  to  believe  slavery  to  be 
a  divine  institution,  intended  for  the  benefit  of 
man  in  his  most  progressive  state,  that  any  slave 
holder  has  a  right  to  take  his  slaves  into  any  of 
the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  and  to  hold 
them  there  as  he  would  in  the  State  from  which 
he  emigrated.  The  effect  of  this  monstrous  doc 
trine  is  to  change  all  the  territory  of  the  United 
States,  whether  Oregon,  Washing  toe,  Minnesota, 
New  Mexico,  Utah,  Kansas  or  Nebraska  into 
slave  territory. 

The  effect  of  this  would  be  to  surrender  842,- 
119,040  acres  to  347,225  slaveholders,  and  to  ex 
clude  the  remaining  19,205.843  free  white  inhabi 
tants  of  the  United  States  from  a.il  enjoyment  of 
them,  or  any  participation  in  their  government, 
and  finally  to  erect  them  into  an  indefinite  number 
of  slave  States. 

The  Convention  at  Charles'on,  in  1860,  can  only 
add  to  this  degradation  office  white  men  and  free 
white  labor,  and  the  entire  prostration  of  free 
speech  and  of  a  free  press;  the  re-establishment  of 
the  African  slave  trade,  which  we  have  denounced 
in  the  face  of  the  civilized  world  as  a  crime  against 
the  law  of  nature  and  abuorrentto  humanity,  stig 
matized  it  as  piracy,  and  punished  it  with  death. 
There  is,  however,  one  thing  further,  which  the 
slaveholders  have  already  practically  asserted, 
and  which  may  be,  and  no  doubt  will  be,  inserted 
in  the  Charleston  platform,  their  inherent  right  to 
curry  into  and  hold  their  slaves  in  the  free  States 
against  the  expr-ss  prohibitions  of  their  constitu 
tions  and  their  laws. 

These  Southern  heresies  thus  publicly  an 
nounced  by  regular  Conventions  of  the  party,  if 
not  resisted  and  put  down  at  the  outset,  not  only 
enter  into  the. policy  of  the  Executive  Government, 
but  finally  make  their  appearance  in  the  judicial 
decisions  of  the  country.  In  the  Southern  States, 
where  all  the  judges  are  slaveholders,  the  original 
line  of  decision,  which  in  conformity  with  the  com 
mon  law  was  always  in  favor  of  freedom  and 
against  slavery,  has  been  entirely  reversed,  and 
the  contrary  rule  is  now  firmly  established. 

These  dogmas  thus  made  law  by  interested  and 
prejudiced  Courts,  are  finally  used  in  the  highest 
tribunal  of  the  nation  as  binding  authorities,  al 
though  contrary  to  all  the  received  doctrines  of 
the  Common  Law,  and  the  old  established  princi- 


ples  of  American  Liberty.  In  fine,  the  result  and 
the  true  object  of  the  Cincinnati  Platform  is  to 
make  Kansas  a  Slave  State. 

Upon  this  Pro  Slavery  Platform  stand  its  nomi 
nees,  James  Buchanan  and  John  C.  Breckinridge, 
the  Litter  gentleman  agreeing  in  opinion  and  feel 
ing  with  all  its  doctrines,  and  the  first  bound  to 
carry  them  out  to  their  fullest  ext' ut  by  his  un 
qualified  acceptance  of  the  nomination  and  of  the 
principles  upon  which  it  was  made. 

Of  the  three  proposed  candidates  of  the  Demo 
cratic  party  I  preferred  Mr,  Buchanan,  and  if  he 
h;id  been  placed  beiore  the  country  upon  princi 
ples  which  I  could  have  approved,  he  would  un 
doubtedly  have  received  my  vote  at  the  ensuing 
Presidential  election. 

But  the  platform  on  which,  he  stands  renders  it 
impossible  for  me  to  vote  for  him,  and  I  am  there 
fore  obliged  to  look  for  my  candidate  in  some 
other  Quarter. 

I  have  carefully  studied  the  Republican  plat 
form,  and  its  principles  meet  my  most  cordial  ap 
probation.  I  disapprove  of  polygamy  in  Utah  as 
I  do  of  slavery  in  Kansas,  for  both  are  against  the 
natural  and  revealed  law,  the  one  in  allowing  a 
man  to  have  forty  wives  and  the  other  in  not  per 
mitting  him  to  have  any  at  nil.  I  am  against  seiz 
ing  Cuba  under  any  pretence  whatever,  and  in 
favor  of  devoting  the  money  intended  for  the  pur 
chase  of  a  slave  colony  and  a  slave  State  to  the 
erection  of  the  great  Pacific  Railroad,  terminating 
on  the  shores  of  the  western  ocean. 

I  am  iu  favor  of  the  restoration  of  the  Missouri 
Comoromise,  of  Kansas  being  a  free  territory  and 
a  free  Stale ;  and  to  obtain  all  the^e  great  objects  I 
have  no  other  option  left  than  to  vote  for  John 
Charles  Freeraont  of  California  and  William  L. 
Dayton  of  New  Jersey  as  President  and  Vice 
President  of  the  United  States. 

Colonel  Fremont  is  in  the  prime  of  life  and  near 
the  same  age  as  General  Washington  was,  when  he 
accepted  the  command  of  the  American  armie.->and 
surprised  the  British  at  Trenton,  oue  of  his  niuat 
brilliant  exploits. 

Colonel  Fremont  is  a  man  of  great  natural  saga 
city,  and  possesses  a  calm,  clear  judgment,  im 
proved  by  t-tudy  and  a  large  experience,  of  human 
nature  in  all  its  forms,  whether  of  savage  or  civil 
ized  life.  He  is  unassuming  in  his  manner:-,  with, 
a  striking  personal  appearance  aud  a  remarkably 
fine  eye,  strongly  indicative  of  a  prominent  fea 
ture  in  his  character,  a  firm  and  vigorous  will. 

His  administration  will  bring  back  those  good 
old  days  when  the  incumbent  of  the  White  House 
was  the  actual  President,  and  governed  his  Cabi 
net  as  well  as  the  people  of  America. 

William  L.  Dayton  is  the  ablest  lawyer  of  his 
native  State,  distinguished  as  it  always  has  been 
for  its  eminent  jurists,  and  in  the  Senate  of  tiio 
United  States  was  conspicuous  for  his  talents,  his 
eloqu  nee,  and  his  statesmanlike  views,  lie  is  dig 
nified  and  courteous  in  his  bt-aring,  and  will  make 
an  admirable  presiding  officer  in  the  Senate  of  the 
Union. 

What  then,  fellow-citizens,  are  we  to  do,  who  are 
in  favour  of  Free  Kansas  and  Free  Territory  and 
Free  Labour  at  the  coming  elections  ? 

There  can  be  but  one  answer,  to  vote  for 
FREMONT  AND  DAYTON. 


II 


YC  08704 


M160480 


*1 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


